A  PLEA  FOR  THE  INTRODUCTION 


RESPONSIBLE  GOVERNMENT 

V.  ^ 


AND    THE 


REPRESENTATION  OF  CAPITAL 


INTO    THE    UNITED    STATES, 


AS    SAFEGUARDS    AGAINST 


COMMUNISM  I  DISUNION. 


EXTRACT  FROM  DBTOOQUKVIU.K'S  "DKMOCKACV  IX  AMKKKA." 

"  In  iliat  immense  crowd  which  throngs  the  avenues  to  power  in  the  United  States,  I  found  very 
few  men  who  displayed  that  manly  candor  and  masculine  independence  of  opinion  which 
irequently  distinguished  the  Americans  In  former  times,  and  which  constitutes  the  leading 
feature  in  distinguished  characters  wheresoever  they  may  be  found.    It  seems  at  t: 
as  if  all  the  minds  of  the  Americans  were  formed  upon  one  model,  so  accurately  do 
low  the  same  rout'  .  does  indeed  sometimes  meet  with  Americans  wh 

from  the  rigor  of  these  formularies,  with  men  who  deplore  the  effects  of  the  laws,  the  mu- 
tability and  the  ignorance  of  democracy— who  even  go  so  far  as  to  observe  tl-c  evil  tendencies 
which  impair  the  national  rharx-ter  and  to  point  out  such  remedies  as  it  might  ba 
to  apply,       •      •       •       bat       •       •       they  hold  a  different  language  in  public." 


By  VAN  BUREX  DEXSLOW,  LL  D, 

Late  Associate  Editor  of  the  New  York  and  Chicago  Tribunes,  Professor  of  Law-  in  the  Union 
College  of  Law,  and  of  Political  Economy  in  the  University  of  Chic  . 


riUNTKI*   FOK   THE  ATTHOR, 
]5Y    .I.VO.   C.    HlKiHKs,    SVKIN-fiKIELt),    ILL. 

1879. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  INTRODUCTION 


OF 


ESPONSIBLE  GOVERNMENT 


AND   THE 


REPRESENTATION  OF  CAPITAL 

INTO    THE    UNITED    STATES, 


AS    SAFEGUARDS    AGAINST 


COMMUNISM  I  DISUNION. 


EXTRACT  FROM  DKTOOQUEVII.LE'S  "  DEMOCRACY  IN  AMERICA." 

'  In  that  immense  crowd  which  throngs  the  avenues  to  power  in  the  United  States,  I  found  very 
few  men  who  displayed  that  manly  candof  and  masculine  independence  of  opinion  which 
frequently  distinguished  the  Americans  in  former  times,  and  which  constitutes  the  leading 
feature  in  distinguished  characters  wheresoever  they  may  be  found.  It  seems  at  first  sight 
as  if  all  the  minds  of  the  Americans  were  formed  upon  one  model,  so  accurately  do  they  fol- 
low the  same  route.  A  stranger  does  indeed  sometimes  meet  with  Americans  who  dissent 
from  the  rigor  of  these  formularies,  with  men  who  deplore  the  effects  of  the  laws,  the  mu- 
tability and  the  ignorance  of  democracy— who  even  go  so  far  as  to  observe  the  evil  tendencies 
which  impair  the  national  character  and  to  point  out  such  remedies  as  it  might  be  possible 
to  apply,  «  •  »  but  •  •  they  hold  a  different  language  in  public." 


By  VAN  BUREN  DENSLOW,  LI.  D., 

Late  Associate  Editor  of  the  New  York  and  Chicago  Tribunes,  Professor  of  Law  in  the  Union 
College  of  Law,  and  of  Political  Economy  in  the  University  of  Chicago. 


PRINTED  POU  THE  AUTHOR, 

BY  Jxo.  C.  HUOHRS,  SruixoFiELU,  ILL. 
1879. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1879,  by 

VAN  BUREN  DENSLOW, 
In  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


JNO.  C.  HUGHES,  H.  W.  ROKKER, 

STEREOTYPER,  PRINTER  AND  BINDER, 

Springfield,  111. 


RESPONSIBLE  GOVERNMENT. 


1.     OUR  LACK  OP  IT  ix  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA, 

AND  HOW  IT  MAY  BE  SUPPLIED. 


IF  any  practical  English  or  American  statesman  were  asked  to-day  to  point 
out  the  chief  difference  between  the  Constitution  of  England  and  that  of 
the  United  States,  he  would  probably  say  that  it  consists  in  the  fact  that  in 
the  United  States,  and  in  each  of  them,  the  executive  branch  of  the  govern- 
ment is  elected  for  a  fixed  term  of  office,  and  during  that  term  is  independent 
of  the  legislative  branch;  while  in  England  the  real  executive  branch  of  the 
government,  to-wit:  the  cabinet,  is  elected  for  no  fixed  term,  and  resigns  either 
upon  an  adverse  vote  of  the  House  of  Commons,  or  if  it  calls  for  a  popular  elec- 
tion to  test  the  stability  of  the  existing  House  of  Commons,  and  is  beaten  at  the 
polls,  then  it  resigns  in  obedience  to  an  adverse  vote  of  the  people.  In  this 
respect,  the  English  executive — regarding  the  Queen  or  King,  of  course,  as  a 
figurehead, — is  flexible,  and  may  be  changed  in  a  day,  or,  at  most,  in  a  month; 
while,  the  American  executive  is  inflexible,  and  when  once  elected,  can  not, 
except  by  impeachment  for  high  crimes  or  misdemeanors,  be  changed  in  less 
than  four  years.  Our  legislatures,  also,  are  inflexible,  whether  they  represent 
faithfully  the  will  of  the  people  or  not;  while  the  English,  Canadian  and 
Australian  legislatures  are  more  flexible,  since  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  execu- 
tive in  each  of  those  countries  to  dissolve  the  legislature  at  any  moment,  and 
test,  by  a  new  election,  whether  the  people  sustain  the  administration,  or 
whether  they  sustain  the  opposition  legislative  majority.  Thus,  in  England, 
Canada  and  Australia  the  people  are  permitted  to  vote  (in  all  important  cases 
over  which  there  is  sufficient  difference  of  opinions  to  divide  parties)  upon  the 
very  question  on  which  their  legislature  is  to  act,  and  in  time  to  control  its 
action. 

In  America  (except  in  certain  cases  wherein,  by  State  legislation,  a  given 
question  is  submitted  to  popular  vote)  the  people,  in  political  campaign*, 
can  not  vote  in  a  manner  to  affect  any  question  of  future  action,  but  must 

NOTE. — The  substance  of  the  above  Chapter  1  was  delivered  as  a  lecture 
before  the  Philosophical  Society  of  Chicago,  on  November  11,  1876. 


4  Responsible  Government. 

simply  vote  an  indorsement  of  one  or  the  other  of  two  sets  of  party  candidates, 
and  with  reference  to  the  record  of  the  party  and  its  candidates  for  the  past 
ten,  thirty  or  fifty  years.  As  parties  never  retain  their  exact  identity  of  mem- 
bership or  principles  from  one  election  to  another,  and,  in  the  course  of  ten  or 
twenty  years,  frequently  change  their  general  drift,  bias  and  principles,  it 
follows  thai  to  vote  with  reference  to  so  fluctuating  and  uncertain  an  element 
as  the  past  record  of  a  political  party  is,  of  necessity,  a  delusive  sham  and 
swindle.  It,  realizes,  in  fact,  the  supposed  Rip  Van  Wiiikleism  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Dutchman  who,  in  the  elections  for  Polk,  Taylor  and  Pierce,  still  kept 
on  voting  for  Gen.  Jackson,  with  the  slight  sting  to  our  national  vanity  of 
placing  every  American  voter  on  a  level  with  the  supposed  stupid  Pennsyl- 
vania Dutchman.  We  are  not  only  at  every  election  voting  exclusively  with 
reference  to  dead  issues,  but  it  is  almost  a  fallacy  to  suppose  that,  under  our 
system  of  fixed  periods  of  office,  we  can,  by  any  possibility,  vote  with  refer- 
ence to  future  issues,  as  no  man  can  tell,  in  politics,  what  the  actual  legisla- 
tion of  the  next  Congress  will  relate  to.  He  may  think,  when  he  casts  his 
vote,  it  will  relate  to  resumption ;  but  what  if  gold  comes  down  to  par  before 
Congress  meets?  We  thought,  when  we  voted  for  Lincoln,  that  the  question 
related  to  keeping  slavery  out  of  the  territories;  we  found  out,  afterward,  that 
it  related  to  abolishing  slavery  by  civil  war  in  the  States. 

It  is  displeasing  to  our  national  vanity  to  find  that  our  government  bends 
less  flexibly  to  the  popular  will  than  the  English — or,  rather,  that  theirs  is  per- 
fectly flexible,  and  ours  has  no  flexibility  at  all;  that  they  vote  on  pending  and 
relevant  questions;  while  we  vote,  at  stated  times,  on  past,  decided  and,  now, 
irrelevant  issues. 

How  did  this  diffei'ence  come  about?  It  did  not  arise  because  the  present 
English  system  of  flexibility  and  responsibility  was,  after  due  consideration 
of  its  merits,  rejected  by  the  framers  of  our  government  as  inferior  to  that  of 
fixed  terms  of  office.  The  pages  of  The  Federalist,  in  which  Madison,  Hamil- 
ton and  Jay  embodied  the  highest  constitutional  learning  of  that  day,  contain 
not  a  single  sentence  indicating  that  the  element  of  elasticity  existed  in  the 
British  Constitution,  so  far  as  they  knew;  or  that  the  King  was  under  any 
constitutional  obligation  to  conform,  in  his  policy,  to  the  views  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  by  permitting  an  unpopular  ministry  to  resign,  and  appointing 
a  new  one  in  harmony  with  the  views  of  that  house.  For  aught  that  appears 
in  their  writings,  the  powers  of  the  King  were  as  inflexible — and  certainly 
during  the  long  reign  of  George  III  were  as  inflexibly  exercised — as  those  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  or  the  Governors  of  our  several  States  now 
are.  In  letter  LXIX  of  The  Federalist,  Alexander  Hamilton  speaks  of  the  veto 
power  of  the  King  in  a  manner  that  no  statesman  would  now  employ.  He 
says: 

"The  King  of  Great  Britain,  on  his  part,  has  an  absolute  negative  upon 
the  acts  of  the  two  houses  of  Parliament.  The  disuse  of  that  power  for  a 
considerable  time  past  does  not  affect  the  reality  of  its  existence,  and  is  to  be 
ascribed  wholly  to  the  Crown  having  found  the  means  of  substituting  influence 
for  authority,  or  the  art  of  gaining  a  majority  in  one  or  the  other  of  the  two 
houses,  for  the  necessity  of  exerting  a  prerogative,  which  could  seldom  be 
exerted  without  hazarding  some  degree  of  national  agitation." 


Why  the  Colonies  failed  to  adopt  it.  5 

Here,  Hamilton  ascribes  the  fact  that  the  Crown  had  long  since  ceased  to 
veto  bills,  not  to  the  fact  that  the  Constitution  compelled  the  Crown  to  modify 
its  cabinet  and  its  policy  to  agree  with  the  bill,  but  to  the  art  with  which  the 
Crown  succeeded  in  controlling  elections  and  Parliament.  Whether  this  were 
true  when  Hamilton  wrote  it,  or  not,  it  certainly  would  not  be  true  to-day. 
To-day;  if  a  bill  which  the  government  opposes  passes  the  House  of  Commons, 
the  cabinet  must  either  resign  or  dissolve  the  Parliament,  and  call  an  election, 
in  which  election  the  people  will  decide  whether  to  sustain  the  old  cabinet  or 
the  bill.  If  they  elect  a  new  house  favorable  to  the  old  cabinet,  theu  the  bill 
is  dropped.  If  they  elect  a  new  house  favorable  to  the  bill,  then  the  old  cabi- 
net goes  out,  and  a  new  one,  favorable  to  the  bill,  goes  in;  and  hence  no  bill 
ever  passes  both  houses,  so  as  to  reach  the  Queen  for  the  royal  assent,  until 
her  cabinet  approve  it  and  are  ready  to  advise  her  to  sign  it. 

As  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  written  a  few  years  earlier  than  The  Fed- 
eralist, nowhere  utter  this  doctrine,  that  the  Crown  must  modify  its  cabinet  to 
agree  with  the  House  of  Commons,  though,  in  practice,  it  had  for  some  time 
been  the  usage,  it  is  probable  that  it  had  not  then  become  a  doctrine  of  the 
English  Constitution,  but  was  regarded  as  most  of  the  features  of  the  English 
Constitution  in  their  origin  were — as  a  privilege  accorded  by  the  favor  and 
grace  of  the  Crown.  Certainly  there  is  nothing  in  the  writings  of  the  framers 
of  our  Constitution  to  indicate  that  they  regarded  it  as  a  doctrine  of  English 
constitutional  law  at  that  time. 

If  we  consider  the  organization  of  the  several  colonial  governments,  we  find 
that  this  system  of  ministerial  responsibility,  not  yet  fully  perfected  in  England, 
was  not  even  dreamed  of  in  any  of  the  colonies.  They  were  glad  to  get  rep- 
resentation of  the  people  in  a  colonial  assembly,  on  any  terms,  and  were  not 
hypercritical  as  to  the  delicacy  and  accuracy  of  the  mechanism  by  which  their 
representation  was  had.  Short,  fixed  terms  of  office  were  to  them  a  great  boon; 
for  what  they  stood  in  dread  of,  was  the  continuance  of  the  Crown's  appointees 
in  office  indefinitely,  or,  perhaps,  an  imitation,  by  their  colonial  legislature,  of 
the  long  Parliament  under  Charles  I,  which  would  not  adjourn  at  all.  The 
more  delicate  machinery  of  a  responsible  ministry,  changeable  at  the  will  of 
the  voters,  had  not  then  grown  into  being,  and  did  not  occupy  their  thoughts. 

The  chief  difference  between  the  English  government  and  our  own,  in 
respect  to  the  promptness  and  delicacy  with  which  they  respond  to  the  popular 
will,  is  one  of  spontaneous  growth,  and,  so  far  as  all  human  agency  is  con- 
cerned, of  accident.  The  English  never  adopted  their  system  as  preferable  to 
ours.  We  never  adopted  ours  as  preferable  to  theirs.  Each  grew  into  its  own 
system,  without  so  much  as  discussing  the  possibility  of  the  other. 

We  propose  to  make  a  calm  and  philosophical,  but  aggressive,  comparison 
between  the  two,  assuming  that  public  opinion  in  this  country,  without  any 
reflection,  is  in  favor  of  our  own,  and  that  this  vis  inertia,  while  it  constitutes 
no  argument  whatever  in  behalf  of  our  system,  still  forms  a  reason  why  many 
will  fail  to  see  the  wisdom  of  any  reasons  that  may  be  adduced  in  behalf  of 
any  other. 


6  Responsible   Government. 

And  first,  in  conferring  fixed  terms  of  office  on  our  legislative  and  execu- 
tive rulers,  without  the  liberty  of  appealing  to  the  voter  at  any  time  to  decide 
whether  they  shall  longer  hold  office,  we  have  impaired  the  sense  of  executive 
and  legislative  responsibility  to  constituencies.  Our  voting  masses  can  not 
vote  out  ministers  and  overturn  majorities  in  the  legislature  at  the  moment 
when  change  is  needed,  viz:  when  a  policy  is  under  discussion  and  prior  to 
its  adoption.  We  may  decline  to  re-elect  the  members  who  have  voted  for  an 
obnoxious  policy,  but  this  not  only  does  not  hinder  its  adoption,  but  often 
excludes  from  the  public  councils  the  men  who,  on  the  next  measure  that  may 
arise,  would  have  voted  wisely,  and  in  accordance  with  the  public  will.  Our 
fixed  terms  of  office,  with  the  barren  privilege  of  punishing  a  wrong  vote  by 
defeat  at  the  next  election,  to  borrow  a  homely  phrase,  locks  the  barn-door  after 
the  thief  has  escaped;  while  the  system  of  ministerial  responsibility,  with  a 
privilege  of  voting  against  a  measure  in  time  to  prevent  its  adoption,  locks 
the  thief  inside,  and  takes  a  vote  on  the  question,  "  What  shall  we  do  with 
him  ?  " — which  is  a  far  nearer  approach  to  popular  sovereignty. 

It  is  sometimes  assumed  that,  the  system  of  responsibility  here  would 
require  the  office  of  President,  be  made  a  life  office,  or  as  permanent  as  the 
English  Crown.  This  need  not  be.  The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  is  an  officer  as  permanent,  colorless,  and  free  from  parti- 
san bias  as  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain.  He  holds  during  life,  or,  what 
the  impeaching  powers  deem  to  be  good  behavior.  The  Queen  hardly  does 
more.  The  Chief  Justice  of  the  highest  court  of  each  State  may  occupy  a  like 
position  relative  to  the  State  government.  The  Queen's  function  in  dissolving 
Parliament  and  calling  a  new  election  could  be  performed  by  the  Chief  Justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court. 

The  real  questions  are,  whether  there  is  sufficient  value  in  the  principle  of 
ministerial  and  legislative  responsibility  to  pay  us  for  adopting  it  in  our 
various  constitutions,  or  whether  it  would  work  as  well  here  as  elsewhere. 
The  chief  value  of  the  system  is  found  in  the  fact  that — 

1.  It  admits  of  a  direct  vote  of  the  people  on  all  important  public  measures 
prior  to  their  adoption. 

2.  It  divides  political  parties  on  the  living  issues  actually  pending  before 
Parliament,  while  our  system  divides  them,  usually,  on  dead  issues. 

And  as  often  as  political  parties  divide  on  living  (questions,  i.  e.,  on  the  ques- 
tion what  shall  actually  be  done  on  a  matter  upon  which  nothing  has  yet  been 
done,  they  necessarily  form  themselves  into  a  party  in  favor  of  the  proposed 
action,  and  a  party  in  favor  of  things  as  they  are;  in  other  words,  into  a  pro- 
gressive and  conservative  party.  Now  a  division  of  parties  into  progressive 
and  conservative,  into  parties  one  in  favor  of  action  or  change  and  one  opposed 
to  change,  is  philosophical,  healthy,  and  tends  toward  the  permanence  and 
durability  of  the  State  Rome,  during  the  most  of  its  long  history,  was  thus 
divided  into  optimates,  those  who  believed  that  things  were  best  let  alone,  and 
populares,  those  who  believed  that  popular  rights  and  leveling  processes  needed 
perpetual  expansion.  Great  Britain,  both  at  home  and  in  her  colonies,  from 
the  days  of  Cromwell  to  this  day,  has  had  these  two  parties,  known,  with  but 


How  Parties  should  divide.  7 

little  variations,  by  the  same  names,  viz.,  Tory  or  conservative,  and  Whig  or 
progressive,  which  is  also  sometimes  styled  liberal.  Such  a  division  of  parties 
is  itself  an  indication  that  the  people  have  opportunities  of  voting  on  questions 
of  policy.  But  in  our  American  system,  who  can  tell  which  party  is  progres- 
sive and  which  conservative.  Those  names  are  never  applied  to  either  of  our 
parties,  except  in  a  spirit  of  demagogism,  merely  to  catch  votes.  Neither  party 
is  at  any  one  time  united  in  favor  of  action  on  any  one  point,  or  in  favor  of 
inaction  on  any  one  point.  During  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question,  John 
Brown,  who  wanted  to  free  the  slaves  in  Virginia  by  revolution,  was  a  pro- 
gressive abolitionist,  and  Senators  Toombs  and  Yancey,  who  wanted  to  call 
the  roll  of  their  slaves  at  Bunker  Hill,  were  progressive  pro-slavery  men. 
Lincoln,  who  was  willing  to  see  slavery  placed  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction 
in  the  States,  but  who  would  grant  it  every  constitutional  right  even  to  the 
fugitive  slave  law  while  it  lived,  was  a  conservative  anti-slavery  man,  while 
some  of  the  early  generals  in  our  armies  who  s«ized  rebel  cattle  but  returned 
to  the  rebels  their  slaves,  were  conservative  pro-slavery  men. 

So.  in  the  questions  of  protective  tariffs,  the  currency,  and  finance,  of  State 
rights  and  suffrage,  there  has  at  no  time  been  any  really  conservative  nor 
any  progressive  party  in  the  country.  Whatever  action  has  been  taken  on 
these  questions  has  been  taken  by  men  elected  on  other  issues.  Men  elected  to 
prevent  slavery  getting  into  the  territories  have  had  to  decide  whether  the 
Union  had  power  to  coerce  a  State.  Men  elected  to  maintain  the  Union  by 
war,  have  had  to  decide  on  the  issue  of  greenbacks  and  the  formation  of  Na- 
tional banks  and  granting  suffrage  to  the  blacks.  Men  elected  in  ratification 
of  universal  suffrage,  have  had  to  act  on  civil-service  reform.  But  on  neither 
of  these  questions  have  the  people  had  opportunity  to  vote  in  advance  on  what, 
should  be  done.  They  could  merely  vote,  inefficiently,  after  action  had  been  taken. 

Now,  throughout  nature,  the  machinery  which  yields  most  promptly  and 
delicately  to  its  controlling  force  is  the  safest.  The  horse  which  obeys  the  rein 
promptly  is  safer  than  one  which  follows  his  own  bent  for  a  fixed  term  until 
he  has  broken  the  neck  of  his  rider,  and  then  takes  another  rider.  The  revo- 
lutions of  the  heavenly  bodies  are  the  least  perishable  material  mechanism  in 
the  universe,  because  every  star  vibrates  responsively  to  every  other,  and  every 
orbit  is  made  true  by  the  fact  that  it  is  the  medium  course  arrived  at  by  the 
offset  of  unnumbered  millions  of  opposing  and  conflicting  attractions,  each  of 
which  is  obeyed  in  proportion  to  its  weight  and  in  inverse  proportion  to  its 
distance.  Shall  it  be  in  government  alone  that  the  greatest  stability  will  be 
reached  by  giving  the  people  a  spasmodic  jerk  at  the  wheel  on  periodical  elec- 
tion days,  and  leaving  them  at  all  other  and  intermediate  days  with  no  more 
voice  or  control  than  so  many  "dumb  driven  cattle?  " 

It  substitutes  in  lieu  of  our  present  caucus  and  convention  system  of 
nominating  the  executive  in  irresponsible  party  convention,  a  system  of  spon- 
taneous and  natural  selection,  whereby  the  two  parties  in  Congress  unite  in 
advancing  to  the  front,  as  leaders,  either  of  the  government  or  of  that  opposi- 
tion which  is  constantly  seeking  to  supplant  thie  government,  the  statesmen  in 
whom  they  place  most  confidence. 


8  Responsible  Government. 

3.  The  system  of  responsible  ministry  imparts  more  good  faith  and  moral 
rectitude  to  politics,  in  two  ways,  viz :    First,  it  requires  the  opposition  party 
not  merely  to  obstruct,  but  to  construct  legislation.     For  it  can  only  oppose 
a  policy  on  condition,  if  successful,  of  taking  upon  itself  to  propose  and  carry 
out  better  legislation.     Secondly,  it  compels  the  people  to  vote  on  the  direct 
question  before  Parliament  in  this  form,  viz:    Will  you  vote  for  Muggins,  who, 
if  returned,  will  vote  for  Mr.  Gladstone's  bill  to  disestablish  the  Irish  church? 
or,  will  you  vote  for  Scroggs,  who  if  returned  will  oppose  it?    Our  issues  point 
back  to  the  previous  votes  of  candidates.     The  English  issue  points  ahead  to 
his  future  vote,  and  its  singleness  facilitates  good  faith  by  compelling  the  ar- 
gument to  be  made  on  the  question  actually  before  the  people. 

4.  It  develops  in  Parliament  recognized  party  leaders,  whose  ability  to 
maintain  their  positions  in  that  body  depends  on  their  success  in  satisfying  it, 
from  day  to  day,  of  the  wisdom  of  their  measures.     These  party  leaders  are, 
at  the  same  time,  cabinet  officers,  and  thus  the  executive  is  brought  into  closer 
and  more  satisfactory  relations  with  the  legislature  than  under  our  system.  The 
views  or  intentions  of  our  President  and  cabinet  can  be  arrived  at  only  by 
wordy  calls  for  information  on  the  part  of  Congress,  responded  to  by  voluminous 
and  often  irrelevant  documents.    True  leadership  in  Congress  and  the  party  will 
be  developed  only  where  cabinet  members  can  be  daily  cross-examined  eye  to 
eye  by  the  opposition.     Our  institutions  fail  to  develop  leaders  by  any  neces- 
sity, and  if  they  accidentally  arise,  fail  wholly  to  place  them  at  the  head  of 
the  government.     Our  leadership,  if  any  exists,  is  the  progeny  of  accident  and 
force.     No  one  would  hold  Grant  to  be  a  political  leader  in  the  same  sense  as 
Gladstone. 

6.  It  would  give  the  administration  the  initiative  in  drawing,  framing, 
and  defending  before  the  legislature  the  proposed  law  as  essential  to  the  suc- 
cess of  its  work;  whereas,  under  our  system,  the  administration  has  no  consti- 
tutional privilege  of  initiating,  drafting  or  defending  the  very  legislation 
which  it  deems  indispensable  to  its  success.  Judge  Story,  greatly  as  he  is  dis- 
posed to  laud  and  magnify  the  constitution,  admits  that  we  have  gone  too  far 
in  separating  the  executive  from  the  legislative  power. 

Judge  Story  (Const,  of  U.  S.  Vol.  1,  p.  614,  \  869)  says: 

"The  universal  exclusion  of  all  persons  holding  office  (vinder  the  United 
States,  from  being  members  of  either  house  during  their  continuance  in  office) 
is,  it  must  be  admitted,  attended  with  some  inconveniences.  The  heads  of  the 
departments  are,  in  fact,  thus  precluded  from  proposing  or  vindicating  their 
own  measures  in  the  face  of 'the  nation  in  the  course  of  debate,  and  are 
compelled  to  submit  them  to  other  men  who  are  either  imperfectly  acquainted 
with  the  measures,  or  are  indifferent  to  their  success  or  failure.  Thus  that 

OPEN  AND  PUBLIC  RESPONSIBILITY  FOR.  MEASURES  WHICH  PROPERLY  BELONGS  TO 
THE  EXECUTIVE  IN  ALL  GOVERNMENTS,  AND  ESPECIALLY  IN  A  REPUBLICAN  GOVERN- 
MENT, AS  ITS  GREATEST  SECURITY  AND  STRENGTH,  is  COMPLETELY  DONE 
AWAY.  The  executive  is  compelled  to  resort  to  secret  and  unseen  influence,  to 
private  interviews  and  private  arrangements,  to  accomplish  its  own  appropri- 
ate purposes,  instead  of  proposing  and  sustaining  its  own  duties  and  measures 
by  a  bold  and  manly  appeal  'to  the  nation  in  the  face  of  its  representatives 
One  consequence  of  this  state  of  things  is,  that  there  never  can  be  traced  home 
to  the  executive  any  responsibility  for  the  measures  which  are  planned  and  car- 


Judge  Story's    Views.  9 

ried  at  its  suggestion.  Another  consequence  will  be  (if  it  has  not  yet  been,) 
that  measures  will  be  adopted  or  defeated  by  private  intrigues,  political  combi- 
nations, irresponsible  recommendations,  and  all  the  blandishments  of  office,  and 
all  the  deadening  weight  of  silent  patronage.  The  executive  will  never  be  com- 
pelled to  avow  or  to  support  any  opinions.  It  will  seem  to  follow  when,  in 
fact,  it  directs  the  opinions  of  Congress.  It  will  assume  the  air  of  a  dependent 
instrument,  ready  to  adopt  the  acts  of  the  legislature,  when,  in  fact,  its  spirit 
and  its  wishes  pervade  the  whole  system  of  legislation.  IF  CORRUPTION  EVER 

EATS  ITS  WAY  SILENTLY  I.VTO  THE  VITALS  OF  THIS  REPUBLIC,  IT  WILL  BE  BECAUSE 
THE  PEOPLE  ARE  U.NABLE  TO  BRING  RESPONSIBILITY  HOME  TO  THE  EXECUTIVE 

THROUGH  His  CHOSEN  MINISTERS.  They  will  be  betrayed  when  their  suspicions 
are  most  lulled  by  the  executive  under  the  disguise  of  an  obedience  to  the  will 
of  Congress.  If  it  would  not  have  been  safe  to  trust  the  heads  of  departments, 
as  representatives,  to  the  choice  of  the  people,  as  their  constituents,  it  would 
have  been  at  least  some  gain  to  have  allowed  them  a  seat  like  territorial  dele- 
gates in  the  House  of  Representatives,  where  they  might  freely  debate  without 
a  title  to  vote.  In  such  an  event,  their  influence,  whatever  it  would  be,  would 
be  seen  and  felt  and  understood,  and,  on  that  account,  would  have  involved 
little  danger,  and  more  searching  jealousy  and  opposition,  whereas  it  is  now 
secret  and  silent,  and,  from  that  very  cause,  may  become  overwhelming. 

"  One  other  reason  in  favor  of  such  a  right  is,  that  it  would  compel  the  execu- 
tive to  make  appointments  for  the  high  departments  of  government,  not  from 
personal  or  party  favorites,  but  from  statesmen  of  high  pubUc  character,  talents, 
experience  and  elevated  services;  from  statesmen  who  had  earned  public  favor 
and  could  command  publjc  confidence.  At  present,  gross  incapacity  may  be 
concealed  under  official  forms,  and  ignorance  silently  escape  by  shifting  the 
labors  upon  more  intelligent  subordinates  in  office.  THE  NATION  WOULD  BE,  ON 

THE  OTHER  PLAN,   BETTER  SERVED;   AND  THE  EXECUTIVE    SUSTAINED  (or  reformed 

— Ed.)  by  more  masculine  eloquence  as  well  as  more  liberal  learning. 

"In  the  British  Parliament,  no  restrictions  of  the  former  sort  exist,  and  few 
of  the  latter,  except  such  as  have  been  created  by  statute.  *  *  *  The  con- 
sequence is  that  the  ministers  of  the  Crown  assume  an  open  public  responsibil- 
ity; and  if  the  representation  of  the  people  in  the  House  of  Commons  were,  as 
it  is  under  the  national  government,  founded  upon  an  uniform  rule  by  which 
the  people  might  obtain  their  full  share  of  the  government,  it  would  be  impos- 
sible for  the  ministry  to  exercise  a  controlling  influence  or  escape  (as  in  Amer- 
ica they  may;  a  direct  palpable  responsibility." 

Judge  Story  does  not  fully  develop  the  fact  that  the  presence  of  cabinet 
members,  in  the  popular  branch  of  the  national  legislature,  is  merely  an  index 
or  incident  and  not  a  cause  of  ministerial  responsibility.  Its  true  cause  is  to 
be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  ministry  must  resign  if  they  can  not  commend 
their  policy,  either  to  the  house  in  which  it  is  proposed,  or  to  the  house  which 
shall  be  returned  by  the  people  after  one  dissolution  and  popular  election.  Yet, 
it  is  clear  that  the  profoundest  commentator  on  the  Federal  constitution  has 
placed  himself  on  record  as  the  advocate  of  such  modifications  as  would  intro- 
duce the  element  of  executive  and  ministerial  responsibility. 

6.  If  the  success  of  the  parties  were  thus  made  dependent,  not  as.  with  us, 
on  the  aggregated  virtue  of  the  party  in  its  handling  of  all  the  measures  of  the 
previous  quarter  of  a  century,  mixed  and  blended  as  they  are  at  each  of  our 
presidential  elections  into  one  confused  argumentative  muddle,  but  upon  the 
ability  of  party  leaders  to  justify  each  measure  in  a  popular  election  as  it 
arises,  a  recognized  need  would  be  felt  for  returning  the  wisest  and  most  ex- 
perienced statesmen,  whether  or  not  they  may  happen  to  reside  in  a  district  or 
State  favorable  to  their  views  or  amiable  toward  their  present  or  past  sup- 


10  Responsible  Government. 

posed  errors.  At  present,  a  vote  which  is  unpopular  in  the  representative's 
district  or  State  "shelves"  him  forever,  without  regard  to  whether  he  or  his 
•  successors  will  vote  most  satisfactorily  on  the  actual  questions  on  which  his 
successor  will  be  called  upon  to  act.  In  England,  statesmen  of  the  highest 
ability,  when  not  taken  and  returned  by  one  district,  are  by  another;  the  ac- 
cident of  residence  being  overlooked.  Statesmanship  is  felt  to  be  the  essential 
and  all  controlling  qualification.  Our  numerous  statesmen  in  private  life,  and 
our  numerous  accidents  in  public  office,  sufficiently  prove  that  our  constitution 
does  not  either  develop  leaders  or  insure  their  hold  upon  power. 

7.  The  Responsible  system  would  bring  to  an  end  the  convulsive  and  in- 
creasingly corrupt  struggle  for  the  control  of  the  Presidency  which  now  agitates 
the  country  to  its  lowest  depths,  not  only  during  the  year  in  which  the  Presi- 
dent is  elected,  but  during  the  years  preceding  which  are  spent  in  plotting  for 
it,  and  of  late,  also,  during  the  years  following  which  are  devoted  to  investi- 
gating its  corruptions  and  to  efforts  to  overturn  its  result. 

A/id  finally :  It  is  one  of  the  chief  and  inseparable  evils  of  our  system  of 
fixed  terms  of  office  and  irrelevant  political  parties  that  we  elect  National  and 
State  officers,  including  county  and  town  officers,  all  on  national  issues,  none  of 
them  on  State  issues.  We  have  no  State  policies  and  a  very  inferior  degree  of 
State  progress  in  political  matters,  compared  with  what  we  need  and  ought  to 
have,  and  might  have  if  the  people  were  furnished  with  an  opportunity  of 
voting  on  questions  of  State  policy  as  they  would  be  if  the  system  of  responsi- 
ble ministry  and  dissolvable  legislatures  were  adopted  in  each  State. 

Suppose  at  present  the  real  question  on  which  the  welfare  of  Illinois  as  a 
State  depends,  is,  by  what  means  can  the  idle  capital,  idle  labor,  idle  coal  and 
idle  skill  of  Illinois  be  combined  with  the  cotton  of  the  south  so  as  to  bring  the 
entire  cotton  crop  into  this  State  to  be  spun  and  woven,  thus  increasing  ten- 
fold the  value  of  every  acre  of  land  in  the  State,  as  the  building  of  the  Erie 
canal  enriched  New  York, — we  have  no  machinery  by  which  such  a  State  issue 
can  be  brought  to  the  front;  but  must  still  keep  on  "voting  as  we  fought,  for  the 
Union."  Suppose  the  first  great  duty  of  our  State  legislature  to-day  is  to  fur- 
nish us  with  a  speedy,  effective  system  of  administering  justice,  instead  of 
keeping  every  litigant  four  years  in  court,  and  so  virtually  denying  and  abol- 
ishing justice, — the  utter  irrelevancy  with  which  we  vote  causes  us  to  ask  only 
the  candidate's  views  on  the  negro  and  war  question,  not  whether  he  has  given 
a  thought  to  the  duties  he  is  to  perform.  Now,  it  is  in  fact  almost  as  impertinent 
and  irrelevant  to  ask  a  candidate  for  a  State  office  what  his  views  on  the  na- 
tional questions  are,  as  to  ask  an  applicant  for  the  position  of  railroad  engineer 
what  are  his  views  on  the  Trinity. 

We  now  advance  to  the  question,  "  Would  the  system  of  ministerial,  exe- 
cutive and  legislative  responsibility  work  as  beneficially  in  America  as  in 
England?"  Are  there  any  circumstances  in  our  "environment"  which  render 
ministerial  and  legislative  responsibility  impossible?  Is  our  more  extended 
suffrage  a  reason  why  we  must  needs  vote  in  a  manner  that  decides  nothing, 
instead  of  in  a  manner  that  decides  everything?  In  England,  household  suffrage 
admits  one-fifth  of  the  male  adults  to  vote.  In  America,  manhood  suffrage 


Its  adaptation  to  our  wants.  11 

admits  them  all.  If  appeals  to  the  country  can  not  as  advantageously  be  taken 
on  actual  living  questions  here  as  in  England,  then  manhood  suffrage  is  in- 
ferior to  household  suffrage.  Conceding  this,  is  it  also  true  that  the  less  the 
competency  of  the  voter,  the  greater  should  be  the  complication  of  the  issue  ? 
Is  the  voting  of  the  incompetent  made  safe  only  when  the  issues  are  varied, 
irrelevant  and  complex?  It  is  certainly  more  complex  to  rote  for  candidates 
as  Americans  do,  with  reference  to  the  political  antecedents  of  their  party  for 
twenty  years  back,  than  as  Englishmen  do,  with  reference  to  the  single  ques- 
tion whether  a  given  thing  should  be  done.  It  should  be  born  in  mind  that 
under  the  Responsible  system,  the  only  issue  on  which  the  people  can  vote  will 
be  one  on  which  the  administration  think  one  way,  and  the  majority  in  Con- 
gress the  other.  It  surely  can  not  be  more  dangerous  to  the  public  to  have  the 
administration  act  on  its  views  in  violation  of  the  will  of  Congress,  or  to  have 
Congress  act  on  its  views  in  violation  of  the  will  of  the  administration,  as  both 
now  do.  than  to  harmonize  both  branches  of  the  government  on  one  authoritative 
policy,  by  calling  in  the  people  to  decide  between  them.  In  so  far  as  universal 
suffrage  lowers  the  qualifications  of  the  roter,  it  forms  an  added  reason  why  he 
be  permitted  to  vote  on  a  single,  unmixed  issue.  Nor  do  the  extent  of  our  terri- 
tory, sparseness  of  our  population,  and  absence  of  hereditary  nobility  prevent 
our  adopting  the  system  of  ministerial  and  legislative  responsibility ;  for  Canada 
and  Australia  have  vast  territories,  sparsely  settled,  and  no  titled  class  worth 
mentioning,  and  yet  the  system  works  as  satisfactorily  in  both  countries  as  in 
England.  Elections  and  changes  in  administration  are  not,  as  some  would 
suppose,  made  more  frequent  or  expensive  by  the  system.  Why  should  the 
popular  will  be  more  fickle  or  changeable  in  the  United  States  than  in  Australia 
or  Canada  ? 

The  change  would  add  to  the  dignity  and  importance  of  the  office  of  Chie? 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  case  upon  this  officer  should  devolve  the  func- 
tions of  dissolving  Congress  and  calling  elections;  and  such  increase  would 
in  like  degree  lessen  and  lower  the  importance  of  the  office  of  President 
or  Premier.  But  experience  is  continually  proving  that  more  power  and 
importance  centre  in  the  presidential  office  than  any  one  man  is  capable  of 
employing  for  the  public  welfare,  and  especially  that  four-fifths  of  the  93,000 
officeholders  now  appointed  by  the  President  and  taught  to  obey  his  will, 
ought  to  be  elected  by  the  people,  and  taught  to  obey  the  law  of  the  land. 
WJjy  concentrate  in  an  office  powers  to  which  no  man  can  do  justice? 

Let  us  suppose  that  all  the  necessary  constitutional  amendments  have  been 
adopted  which  would  be  required  to  introduce  into  our  Federal  government  the 
system  of  ministerial  and  legislative  responsibility,  in  lieu  of  that  of  fixed 
terms  of  office.  Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  are  elected,  let  us 
say.  for  a  term  not  to  exceed  eight  years,  but  liable  to  be  sooner  terminated  at 
any  moment  by  the  dissolution  of  Congress  by  the  Chief  Justice.  The  latter, 
pro  hoc  vice,  occupies  the  place  of  the  Crown  of  England.  He  is  the  perma- 
nent, colorless  and  non-partisan  element  in  our  constitution.  The  President 
may  either  obtain  office  on  a  periodical  election,  to  be  held  once  in  say  eight 
years,  at  which  candidates  will  be  nominated  by  the  people  at  large,  or,  like  the 


12  Responsible  Government. 

premier  and  members  of  the  cabinet  in  England,  by  first  being  the  leader  of 
the  triumphant  opposition  in  Congress.  In  this  case  he  has  been  nominated 
and  designated  for  his  position  by  the  opposition  in  Congress,  subsequently 
ratified  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  at  the  polls.  To  this  end,  whenever 
the  opposition  party  in  Congress  shall  propose  a  vote  of  want  of  confidence  in 
the  administration  in  power,  they  shall  accompany  it  by  a  list  of  the  names 
through  whom  they  desire  the  government  to  be  administered.  Upon  the 
occurrence  of  a  majority  vote  in  Congress  adverse  to  the  government,  accom- 
panied by  a  list  of  names  of  members  of  the  opposition  party  through  whom 
that  party  desires  the  government  administered,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
Chief  Justice  to  order  an  election  throughout  the  United  States,  wherein  the 
people  will  vote  for  the  candidates  of  the  party  in  power,  or  for  the  candidates 
of  the  opposition,  according  to  their  opinions  on  the  particular  policy  which 
gives  rise  to  the  question.  If  Congress  should  pass  a  vote  of  a  want  of  confi- 
dence in  the  existing  administration,  without  being  able  to  agree  upon  the 
members  of  the  cabinet  desired,  then  the  Chief  Justice  would  select  the  names 
from  among  the  leaders  of  the  majority  party.  The  President  and  his  various 
cabinet  members,  like  the  premier  under  the  English  system,  would  continue  to 
be  members  from  some  representative  district,  and  to  hold  their  seats  in  Con- 
gress, proposing  their  policies,  introducing  their  bills,  defending  them  on  the 
floors  of  Congress,  and  yielding  their  executive  positions  at  the  head  of  their 
respective  departments  whenever  the  people  should  vote  a  change.  It  would 
be  essential  to  such  a  system  that  no  Representative  need  reside  in  the  dis- 
trict which  elects  him,  but  that  all  Representatives  be  chosen  from  the  country 
afc  large,  though  by  the  people  of  some  one  district,  and  that  the  patronage  of 
the  President  be  lessened  by  substituting  election  for  appointment. 

Should  a  candidate  running  at  the  same  time  for  Representative  of  a  dis- 
trict and  for  an  executive  x>r  cabinet  position  be  elected  to  the  latter,  and  fail 
of  election  to  the  former,  he  might,  occupy  the  very  anomalous  position  of  a 
member  of  the  cabinet,  entitled  to  a  seat  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  but 
representing  no  particular  district. 

Having  thus  outlined  the  system,  let  us  suppose  it  in  operation,  Mr.  Waite 
being  Chief  Justice,  U.  S.  Grant,  President,  and  the  question  before  Congress 
being  whether  the  United  States  shall  redeem  its  legal  tender  notes  in  gold, 
on  demand,  on  and  after  the  1st  day  of  January  next.  If  there  are  283  mem- 
bers in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  the  administration  proposes  the 
measure  in  question,  if  142  members  and  upward  sustain  the  measure,  this 
continues  the  existing  administration  in  power,  and,  their  election  being  the 
last  expression  of  the  popular  voice,  it  is  presumed  the  people  are  satisfied. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  142  votes  or  upward  oppose  resumption,  the  opposi- 
tion certify  to  the  Speaker  of  the  House,  and  he  transmits  to  the  President, 
and  also  to  the  Chief  Justice,  a  list  of  anti-resumption  candidates  for  executive 
and  cabinet  positions,  in  manner  following,  viz : 

For  President — Thomas  A.  Hendricks,  of  Indiana. 

For  Vice-President — Benjamin  F.  Butler,  of  Massachusetts. 

For  Secretary  of  the  Treasury— William  D.  Kelley,  of  Pennsylvania. 


Natural  Selection  vs.   Caucus  Selection.  13 

For  Secretary  of  State — William  Allen,  of  Ohio. 
For  Secretary  of  War — George  B.  McClellan,  of  New  Jersey. 
For  Secretary  of  the  Interior — Peter  Cooper,  of  New  York. 
For  Postmaster  General — Joseph  E.  Johnston,  of  Virginia,  etc. 

While  there  need  be  no  constitutional  restriction  requiring  that  the  candi- 
dates so  elected  hy  the  vote  of  the  opposition  members  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives should  have  been  the  leaders  of  the  opposition  in  that  body,  any 
more  than  there  need  be  a  statute  in  England  enacting  that  the  incoming 
administration  shall  be  composed  chiefly  of  the  leaders  of  the  late  opposition, 
it  would,  by  the  force  of  the  interest  of  the  parties,  work  in  that  way.  This 
•would  impart  to  the  debates  in  Congress  a  business-like  reality  and  force. 
That  body  would  no  longer  be  the  mere  arena  for  the  display  of  intellectual 
fireworks,  but  rather  the  forge  in  which,  at  any  moment,  a  revolution  and  a 
new  government  might  be  created,  and  in  which  the  members  would  speak 
under  the  moderating  consciousness,  not  only  that  their  ablest  opponents  would 
answer  them,  but  that,  if  successful,  they  themselves  must  take  the  helm  of 
State,  and  do  something  better  than  that  which  they  are  criticising. 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  upon  receiving  the  vote  by  Con- 
gress of  want  of  confidence  in  the  administration  of  President  Grant  and  his 
cabinet,  would  issue  a  writ  for  an  election,  in  which  the  people  would  vote  in 
their  respective  Congressional  districts  for  such  candidates  for  Congress  as 
they  should  nominate — those  candidates  representing,  on  the  one  side,  resump- 
tion, on  the  other  anti-resumption — and  also  by  districts,  for  the  existing  exe- 
cutive and  cabinet  on  the  one  hand,  or  for  the  opposition  candidates  on  the  other. 

Thus  it  could  not  fail,  that  whatever  party  should  elect  a  majority  of  mem- 
bers to  the  House  of  Representatives,  would  also  elect  the  President  and  cabi- 
net, and  the  complexion  and  policy  of  the  two  would  harmonize.  The  veto 
power  of  the  President  would  disappear  here,  as  that  of  the  Crown  has  done 
in  England,  through  the  complete  subordination  of  that  officer  to  the  popular 
branch  of  Congress,  and  the  executive  and  legislative  branches  would  never 
paralyze  action  through  inability  to  coalesce  in  policy.  Under  our  present 
system,  which  is  an  enlargement  of  the  New  England  "town  meeting,"  first, 
into  a  county  board  of  supervisors,  then  into  a  State  legislature,  and  then  into 
the  National  Congress,  there  is,  throughout,  no  system  of  selection,  except 
through  the  party  caucus,  no  recognized  party  to  take  the  initiative,  and  no 
organizing  motive  to  restrain  each  legislator  from  defeating  the  measures  pro- 
posed by  every  other,  through  sheer  jealousy.  But  under  the  proposed  re- 
sponsible system,  the  organizing  motive,  which  sorts  each  party  and  advances 
its  most  powerful  leaders  to  the  front,  is  the  instinct  or  passion  for  a  common 
success — the  same  which  promotes  to  the  front  of  a  herd  of  buffaloes  the  bull 
of  sturdiest  courage,  broadest  shoulders  and  most  invincible  horns.  It  was 
this  instinct  to  win  which  compelled  George  the  Third  to  select  Pitt,  whom  he 
disliked,  and  Fox,  whom  he  hated,  to  lead  that  administration  which,  under 
a  sovereign  whose  name  the  world  has  almost  forgotten,  displayed  the  greatest 
executive  energy  the  world  has  ever  seen,  in  combining  the  resources  of  Eng- 
land and  the  armies  of  Europe  for  the  overthrow  of  Napoleon. 


14  Responsible   Government. 

The  system  of  "checks  and  balances,"  which  is  supposed  by  some  to  have  a 
mysterious  value,  would  disappear,  so  far  as  concerns  the  present  power  of  the 
President  to  check  and  balance  anything  short  of  two-thirds  of  both  branches 
of  Congress.  The  Senate  would  constitute  a  check  upon  the  popular  branch, 
but  not  in  so  decided  a  degree  as  at  present;  for  the  very  principle  of  execu- 
tive and  ministerial  responsibility,  implying,  as  it  does,  that  the  administra- 
tion shall  fight  its  battle  in  the  popular  branch  of  Congress,  would  cause  the 
ablest  men  in  the  country  to  seek  seats  in  that  branch.  There  the  competitors 
for  cabinet  positions  and  the  oratorical  thunderers  would  meet  in  combats,  in 
which  administi-ations  would  rise  and  fall,  and  revolutions  in  the  personnel 
of  the  government  would  hang  on  the  arbitrament  of  debate.  But  by  all  these 
means  the  actual  sovereignty  of  the  voting  classes  over  legislative  and  minis- 
terial action  would  be  made  as  complete,  automatic  and  sensitive  in  republican 
America,  as  for  a  century  past  it  has  been  in  monarchical  England.  Popular 
suffrage  would  be  less  delusive,  Presidential  elections  less  dangerous  and  cor- 
rupt, caucuses  and  National  conventions  would  disappear,  and  American  poli- 
tics would  be  less  a  swindle  than  they  are. 

Ten  or  twelve  years  ago,  in  a  conversation  with  Hon.  Schuyler  Colfax,  I 
ventilated  these  views  in  a  brief,  conversational  way,  and  found  that  they  were 
familiar  guests  in  his  mind.  He  remarked  that  he  thought  the  American 
people  might,  at  an  early  day,  be  induced  to  adopt  the  system  of  giving  seats 
in  Congress  to  cabinet 'ministers,  and  that  it  would  work  well.  About  six 
years  ago  there  were  presented  in  the  Illinois  legislature  a  series  of  resolutions, 
recommending  a  re-organization  of  the  National  government  on  this  basis.  I 
have  not  now  the  resolutions,  nor  do  I  remember  what  action  Was  taken  on 
them,  nor  the  name  of  their  adventurous  author. 

Last  summer  I  published  in  the  .2V.  W.  Christian  Advocate  an  article,  which 
is  now  embodied  in  this  lecture.  It  was  republished,  or  commented  on,  in 
The  Chicago  Times  and  Tribune,  The  New  York  Tribune,  The  Imperialist,  The 
Boston  Advertiser,  and  The  Milwaukee  News,  the  last  named  paper  being  then 
edited  by  Hon.  John  M.  Binkley,  an  experienced  Washington  politician  and 
editor.  The  Chicago  Times  characterized  the  plan  above  proposed  as  "a  system 
immeasurably  superior  to  the  executive  and  legislative  plan  adopted  by  the 
twelve  colonies."  From  the  remaining  critics  came  either  proposed  amend- 
ments which  deny  its  merits,  or  humorous  fanfaronade,  or  grave  and  sombre 
forebodings  at  the  supposed  audacity  and  impracticability  of  the  scheme.  The 
Chicago  Tribune,  by  the  pen  of  its  chief  editor,  Hon.  Joseph  Medill,  suggested 
that  undoubtedly  a  government,  by  a  responsible  cabinet,  would  be  preferable 
to  our  present  system,  but  the  President  ought  to  remain  permanent,  as  at 
present,  it  being  sufficient  if  his  cabinet  should  go  out  in  obedience  to  the  will 
of  the  House  of  Representatives.  This  is  the  system  over  which  France  has 
been  struggling  for  nearly  ten  years,  in  the  effort  to  discover  whether  it  has  a 
responsible  government  or  not.  The  value  of  ministerial  responsibility  depends 
on  the  completeness  with  which  the  vote  of  the  popular  branch  of  the  parliament 
changes  the  government,  Under  our  system,  the  President,  if  stubborn,  is  the 
government,  and  his  secretaries  are  his  clerks.  Mr.  Medill's  system  would  effect 


The  Views  of  the  Critics.  15 

a  change  of  clerks,  and  would  go  far  in  the  right  direction.  Under  a  fair-tem- 
pered President  it  might  sufficiently  change  the  government.  But  how  could 
a  conscientious  President,-elected  by  one  party,  work  in  harmony  with  a  cabi- 
net selected  by  the  adverse  party,  if  the  two  parties  really  stood  at  issue  upon 
living  questions?  Either  their  counsels  would  neutralize  and  stultify  his,  (and 
in  that  case  he  might  as  well  have  resigned,)  or  his  will  override  theirs,  and 
in  that  case  they  might  as  well  not  have  gone  into  the  cabinet. 
My  next  critic  is  The  New  York  Tribune,  which  says : 

He  advocates  a  system  of  legislative  and  ministerial  government  in  lieu  of 
that  of  fixed  terms  of  office.  He  would  have  members  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives elected  for  a  term  not  to  exceed  eight  years,  but  liable  to  be  termi- 
nated at  any  moment  by  a  dissolution  of  Congress  by  the  Chief  Justice,  who 
is,  he  says,  "  the  permanent,  colorless  and  non-partisan  element  in  our  consti- 
tution." Whenever  the  opposition  in  Congress  propose  a  vote  of  want  of  con- 
fidence in  the  administration,  they  shrill  hand  in  a  list  of  candidates  for  Presi- 
dent, Yice-President  and  cabinet  officers,  and  if  the  motion  prevail,  the  Chief 
Justice  shall  order  a  general  election,  wherein  the  people  will  vote  for  the 
administration  or  the  opposition,  according  to  their  views  respecting  the  ques- 
tion of  public  policy  on  which  the  division  has  been  made.  At  the  same  time 
Congressmen  shall  be  elected,  so  that  a  majority  will  be  in  accord  with  the 
old  administration,  if  it  be  retained,  or  with  the  new  President  and  cabinet, 
if  they  be  chosen.  The  President  will  be  a  party  leader,  the  veto  power  will 
disappear,  cabinet  officers  will  hold  seats  in  Congress,  the  legislative  and  ex- 
ecutive branches  will  always  be  in  harmony,  the  Senate  will  be  a  moderate 
check  on  the  popular  branch,  and  the  political  parties  will  be  divided  on  living 
issues.  This  is  the  Professor's  scheme.  In  brief,  he  would  have  the  nation 
change,  not  its  clothes,  but  its  very  bones.  The  surgeon  who  said  to  a  rheu- 
matic patient,  "  I'll  put  in  a  thigh-bone  and  a  shoulder-blade,  patch  up  your 
spine,  work  in  a  full  set  of  ribs,  and  make  a  new  man  of  you,"  was  met  with 
the  reply,  "A  post  mortem  first,  doctor." 

The  fallacy  of  The  New  York  Tribune  consists  in  assuming  that  the  Federal 
constitution,  which  is  the  work  of  man,  is  as  impossible  to  mend  as  the  human 
form  divine,  which  is  the  work  of  God.  Did  not  the  nation  change,  not  its 
clothes,  but  its  very  bones,  when  it  peacefully  and  without  a  tear-drop  or  a 
blood-drop  passed  from  the  inefficient  mis-government  of  the  articles  of  con- 
federation to  the  far  more  efficient  system  of  our  Federal  constitution  ?  The 
New  York  Tribune  objects  to  it,  because  it  calls  upon  the  American  people  for 
a  change  utterly  beyond  our  capacity  for  change. 

The  Milwaukee  News,  on  the  other  hand,  objects,  that  while,  in  the  first 
instance,  it  would  involve  a  change  beyond  our  capacity  for  change,  in  short, 
a  dislocation,  in  the  long  run,  when  adopted,  it  would  call  for  a  degree  of  sta- 
bility which  we,  as  a  people,  do  not  possess.  It  says: 

CAN  WE  TRANSPLANT   A    BRITISH   CONSTITUTIONAL    DEVICE? 

Notwithstanding  he  chose  to  publish  his  views  in  a  journal  of  limited  cir- 
culation, in  other  respects  eminently  a  fit  vehicle  for  the  thoughts  of  serious 
men — The  Northwestern  Christian  Advocate — Prof.  Denslow's  remarkable  paper 
is  having  an  extensive  circulation  through  the  press  of  the  country.  We  insert 
it  entire  elsewhere.  If  the  object  of  the  learned  author  is  to  redress  the  evils 
under  which  we  suffer  with  a  practical  remedy,  we  think  it  would  be  abortive. 
We  see  and  testify  to  the  symmetry  of  the  theory,  and  we  would  especially 
commend  the  accuracy  and  good  sense  with  which  he  detects  and  expounds  the 


16  Responsible  Government. 

true  nature  and  working  of  the  English  system.  But  to  us  it  appears  that  the 
conditions  are  so  vastly  different  in  America  that  the  introduction  of  it  here 
would  be  a  violent  dislocation. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  government  more  directly  reflects  the  will  of  the 
people  in  England  than  it  does  in  the  United  States,  and  this  good  result  is  to 
be  imputed  to  the  constitutional  instrumentality.  But  does  it.  follow,  that  to 
transplant  the  instrumentality  would  command  here  the  same  result?  We 
think  not.  It  commands  it  there  only  because  the  conditions  temper,  favor  and 
regulate  it.  Those  conditions  can  not  be  transplanted.  We  will  not  enumerate 
them.  But  one,  alone,  will,  we  think,  suffice.  British  usage  is,  perhaps,  the 
most  impassible,  the  most  invincible,  and  the  most  persistent  organic  system 
ever  known  in  the  world,  and  it  permeates  the  pettiest  trifles  of  domestic  life, 
as  it  dominates  the  most  momentous  crises  of  State.  We  may  define  any  Brit- 
ish civil  matter  whatever,  from  cab  fares  to  the  succession  of  the  Crown,  thus: 
habit,  that  is — concreted — usage,  plus  the  law.  We  do  not  speak  of  the  usage 
known  to  lawyers — that  is  itself  law — but  usage  underlying  law,  omnipresent, 
spontaneous,  idiosyncratic,  English.  We  can  no  more  transplant  that,  in  trans- 
planting a  feature  of  the  British  civil  constitution,  than  I  can  adopt  for  my 
own  your  countenance  in  adopting  your  eye-glasses  or  your  cut  of  beard. 

In  reply  to  the  metaphysical  objections  of  The  Milwaukee  Newt,  I  would  say 
that  the  English  mind  is  essentially  like  the  American  mind.  We  have  a  com- 
mon language,  literature,  and  law,  and  our  American  fathers,  in  laying  the 
foundations  of  our  government,  intended  to  and  did  adopt  every  well-matured 
excellence  of  the  English  constitution  into  our  own.  But  this  had  not  then 
been  well  matured.  In  1776,  it  existed  only  in  embryo,  and  its  nature  was  not 
even  detected  then  by  our  astutest  statesmen.  It  has  since  been  matured  in 
England  rather  by  inadvertence  than  by  design.  It  is  the  outgrowth  of  a  sense 
of  honor  among  English  statesmen,  which  forbids  them  to  hold  office  a  moment 
longer  than  they  represent  those  whom  they  serve.  In  turn,  it  cultivates  the 
sense  of  honor  of  which  it  is  the  outgrowth.  Does  The  News  mean  that  Amer- 
ican politicians  have  so  little  sense  of  honor  that  no  prearranged  system  can 
induce  them  to  resign  on  any  contingency?  If  so,  we  can  take  the  same  course 
an  English  parliament  would  take  with  an  outvoted  ministry  that  refused  to 
resign — impeach  them!  Does  The  News  mean  that  our  national  pride  would 
forbid  us  to  borrow  this  design  in  politics  because  it  is  of  English  pattern? — we 
who  wear  our  hair,  our  whiskers,  our  overcoats,  our  boots,  our  neckties  after 
the  English  mode,  who  copy  English  carriages,  carriage  dogs,  import  English 
blooded-stock,  enact  English  statutes  by  the  thousand,  read  English  literature, 
and  speak  the  English  language;  who  think  an  English  philosophy,  believe  in 
an  English  phase  of  religion,  and  who,  it  is  not  to  much  to  say,  are  Englishmen 
and  worship  an  English  God — we  who  see  our  English  brethren  willing  to 
adopt  from  us  our  vote  by  ballot,  our  system  of  recording  deeds,  our  New  York 
code  of  civil  procedure,  the  principles  of  which  were  borrowed  from  England's 
illustrious  Jeremy  Bentham  and  Lord  Brougham,  our  electric  telegraph,  our 
system  of  propelling  vessels  by  steam,  our  cylinder  printing-presses,  our 
reapers,  mowers,  sewing  machines,  and  fire  engines,  willing  to  receive 
news  through  our  cable,  and  to  pronounce  tlreir  own  language,  under  the 
instruction  of  the  Yankee,  Noah  Webster?  Shall  we  admit  that  there  is 
anything  the  English  mind  is  capable  of  devising  and  adopting,  that 


A  Constitutional  Epoch.  17 

we  can  not,  if  we  will,  put  into  still  more  efficient  practice  than  they 
have  done?  No.  If  I  may  be  permitted,  for  the  occasion,  to  borrow  the  lan- 
guage of  the  professional  American  politician,  I  would  say,  I  hurl  back  the  im- 
putation with  scorn.  I  believe  the  two  nations  will  be  nearer  together  in  their 
future  competitions,  co-operations  and  destiny  than  if  their  governments  had 
never  been  severed.  I  would  that  the  north  and  south  were  as  much  in  harmony 
to-day  with  each  other  as  either  the  south  or  the  north  is  with  England.  I 
would  that  inore  of  our  railroads  pointed  toward  St.  Lonis,  Memphis  and  Chi- 
cago, and  fewer  of  them  toward  Liverpool.  I  would  that  the  domestic  commerce, 
boil)  of  products  and  of  ideas,  betwe  n  the  various  parts  of  our  common  country 
were  greater  than  it  is.  On  its  increase  depends  an  increase  of  the  feeling  of 
unity  and  union.  Not  less  important  in  producing  these  results,  however,  will 
be  such  a  remodeling  of  our  national  constitution  as  will  render  it  delicately, 
promptly  and  justly  susceptible  to  the  influences  of  the  popular  will,  whether 
the  means  to  that  end  be  of  ancient  or  modern,  of  American  or  English,  origin 
Had  the  system  which  I  have  proposed  been  in  vogue  in  1858,  when  a  Republi 
can  (John  Sherman)  was  elected  speaker  of  the  House,  a  cabinet  would  then 
have  come  in  of  Republican  views,  and  rebellion,  under  such  a  cabinet,  could 
not  have  been  peacefully  matured.  It  was  the  long  interval  nrider  Buchanan's 
administration,  after  the  republicanization  of  the  north  became  known  and  be- 
fore its  administration  could  enter  on  its  duties,  that  facilitated  the  peaceful 
preparation  for  a  vast  civil  war.  It  was  the  sluggish  lethargy  of  our  consti- 
tution that  rendered  the  rebellion  possible,  and  it  yet  remains  to  be  seen 
whether,  owing  to  the  same  sluggish  lethargy,  we  can  ever  again  suffer  a 
change  of  parties  in  our  national  government  without  civil  war.  Certainly 
the  maintenance  of  the  old  party  in  power  for  six  months  after  it  has  endured 
defeat  at  the  polls  is  not  a  peaceful  nor  a  prudent  feature. 

Our  constitution  was  wisely  framed  for  3,000.000  of  people.  In  many  other 
respects  than  those  to  which  I  have  referred,  it  did  not  foresee  or  contemplate 
the  needs  of  40.000,000  of  people.  As  after  the  first  revolution  it  was  found 
necessary  that  the  constitution  be  wholly  remodeled,  so  after  the  second  revo- 
lution, an  equally  important  epoch  of  constitutional  amendment  may  be  at  hand. 
Three  most  important  amendments  growing  out  of  the  late  revolution  have 
already  been  passed.  They  protect  the  negro  only.  They  do  not  secure  purity 
or  ability  in  the  management  of  public  affairs.  Our  government  is  more  and 
more  becoming  the  plunder-field  of  blatant  demagogues  of  both  parties,  who 
are  too  much  occupied  in  serving  themselves  to  ever  think  of  serving  the 
country.  Much  of  this  dishonesty  in  politics  arises  from  the  inability  of  the 
people,  under  our  system,  to  vote  on  living  issues.  The  system  of  responsible 
ministry  and  dissolvable  legislatures  will  not  only  enable,  but  compel  them  to 
vote  on  the  .thing  next  to  be  done. 

Of  course  we  do  not  anticipate  that  such  a  reform  can  be  adopted  in  the 
Federal  government  before  it  shall  have  been  adopted  in  many  of  the  States, 
as  the  Federal  government  will  probably  always  continue  to  be  modeled  after 
those  of  the  States.  But  once  satisfy  the  American  people  on  a  point  to  which 


18  Responsible   Government. 

they  have  hardly  allowed  themselves  to  give  any  reflection,  viz.,  that  our  system 
of  government  is  inherently  inferior  to  one  that  can  be  substituted,  and  the  sub- 
titution  will  be  easy.  The  chief  obstacle  to  be  overcome  is  not  the  national  reason, 
but  the  national  vanity.  I  regard  this  quality  as  a  very  formidable  but  not  an 
absolutely  unconquerable  obstacle.  Introduce  this  system,  let  the  people  sway 
legislation  instead  of  deciding  between  two  sets  of  officeholders  by  their  votes, 
and  American  politics  will  become  more  direct,  more  honest,  more  able,  more 
efficient,  more  dignified,  and  our  whole  fabric  of  government  will  become 
more  stable  and  enduring  because  more  worthy  to  endure. 


RESPONSIBLE  GOVERNMENT. 


2.    ITS  GROWTH,  PREVALENCE  AND  SUCCESS  AS  A  PRINCIPLE 

IN  MODERN  GOVERNMENT,  ILLUSTRATED 

BY  EXAMPLE. 


WHILE  the  advocates  of  republicanism,  both  in  Europe  and  America,  have 
been  waiting  for  a  century  past  to  see  that  system  supplant  the  monarch- 
ical, there  have  been  silently  and  gradually  developing  within  the  monarch- 
ical system  certain  habits  or  usages  tending  greatly  in  aid  of  popular  freedom, 
which  have  come  to  be  known  as  responsible  government.  Meanwhile,  the 
attention  of  the  thinkers,  statesmen  and  politicians  of  our  own  republic  has 
been  occasionally,  and  of  late  vigorously,  drawn  to  the  fact  that  it  is  a  govern- 
ment in  some  respects  absolute  and  irresponsible,  our  office-holders  having  a 
clear  carte-blanche  to  do,  during  their  term  of  office,  pretty  much  as  they  have 
a  mind,  subject  only  to  impeachment  for  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors. 

That  republics  should  grow  more  absolute,  and  that  the  monarchies  of 
Europe  should  nearly  all  grow  more  sensitive  to  the  popular  will,  is  far  from 
fulfilling  Napoleon's  prediction  that  in  fifty  years  Europe  would  become  either 
Cossack  or  republican. 

This  subtle  change  in  the  constitution  of  European  monarchies  so  largely 
satisfies  the  popular  demand,  and  this  unforeseen  development  of  absolutism 
in  republics  so  disappoints  the  hopes  of  republicans,  that  for  Iwenty-five  years 
past  further  conversions  of  European  nations  to  republicanism  have  been  re- 
tarded, and  instead  republicans  are  inquiring  whether  the  deficiencies  in  their 
own  system  are  inherent  or  accidental. 

We  purpose  to  inquire,  first.  What  is  responsible  government  as  exhibited 
in  the  various  national  examples  in  which  it  has  any  existence?  Secondly, 
Is  the  principle  indigenous  only  in  monarchies,  and  an  exotic  in  republics? 
Thirdly,  Can  the  United  States  get  on  well  without  it?  And,  fourthly,  If  not, 
how  shall  we  introduce  it? 


NOTE. — The  above  Chapter  2   was  published   in   the  International  Review, 
(A.  S.  Barnes  &  Co.,  N.  Y.,)  for  March-April,  1877. 


20  Responsible  Government. 

Responsible  government  is  that  system  wherein  the  administration  is  re- 
sponsible to  the  Legislature  and  to  the  people  for  every  thing  that  is  done,  and 
wherein,  to  make  this  responsibility  just,  the  Legislature  and  people  have  the 
means  of  removing  and  changing  the  administration  at  any  moment,  to  con- 
form to  the  voice  of  the  nation  constitutionally  expressed.  It  implies  some 
one  officer  sufficiently  permanent  to  act,  in  gi-eat  part  ministerially,  as  an 
appointer  of  cabinets,  a  dissoiver  of  Legislatures,  and  a  caller  of  popular  elec- 
tions, to  the  end  that  the  executive  and  legislative  branches  of  the  government 
may,  in  case  of  conflict  between  them,  appeal  to  the  voting  constituency  or 
people  to  say  which  is  right ;  and  having  so  appealed,  and  the  people  having 
voted  thereon,  their  vote  shall  so  control  the  complexion  of  the  Legislature  and 
of  the  cabinet  that  all  departments  of  the  government  shall  bow  to  the  latest 
expression  of  the  popular  will.  It  is  a  system  under  which  Legislatures  and 
ministries  are  dissolvable  at  any  moment  instead  of  being  elected  or  appointed 
for  fixed  terms  of  office,  under  which  the  people  are  appealed  to  only  to  decide 
some  living  issue  on  which  the  Legislature  has  not  yet  acted,  and  under  which 
political  parties  divide  and  vote,  not  with  reference  to  the  utility  of  something 
already  irreparably  done,  but  to  the  wisdom  of  something  proposed  to  be  done, 
and  on  the  propriety  of  doing  which  the  administration  in  power  thinks  one 
way  and  the  majority  of  the  Legislature  thinks  the  other. 

This  system  prevails  ia  the  following  States  in  a  degree  declining  in  rela- 
tive vigor  or  permanency  in  something  like  the  order  in  which  they  are  named, 
viz:  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  in  Canada,  in  each  of 
the  Australian  colonies,  the  Austro-Hungarian  Empire,  Belgium,  Italy,  France, 
the  Netherlands,  Bavaria,  Saxony,  Baden  and  other  minor  German  States, 
Denmark,  Sweden,  Servia,  Greece,  and  in  the  recent  constitutions  of  Spain, 
Nicaragua  and  Paraguay.  In  Switzerland  there  is  a  government  by  a  min- 
istry without  any  executive.  The  ministry  seem  to  be  appointed  for  short, 
fixed  terms,  with  certain  privileges  of  rotation,  but  are  without  technical  re- 
sponsibility to  or  power  of  dissolving  the  Legislature. 

It  is  absent  from  Russia,  Prussia  and  the  German  Empire,  most  of  the 
minor  German  States,  Turkey,*  the  United  States  of  America  and  each  of  them, 
Mexico,  all  the  South  American  Republics  except  Paraguay,  Brazil,  the  Em- 
pire of  India,  China,  Persia,  Japan,  and  all  barbarous  States. 

In  Great  Britain  the  principle  has  attained  its  fullest  perfection  by  growth. 
In  Canada,  Australia,  and  probably  Belgium,  it  has  arisen  under  English  in- 
fluence and  imitation.  In  existing  France  and  Italy  it  has  been  adopted 
through  very  deliberate  preference,  and  in  Austro-Hungary  it  has  been  re- 
sorted to,  by  experienced  statesmen,  to  accommodate  the  interests  of  a  some- 
what unpopular  reigning  family  to  the  persistent,  demands  of  the  people  for 
the  control  of  the  government. 

*  The  recent  Turkish  Constitution  provides  partially  for  the  substitution  of 
the  responsible  system  of  government.  The  ministry  are  impeachable  by  the 
Chambers,  as  in  Portugal  and  Brazil,  and  they  have  the  initiative  in  framing 
laws. 


Its  Rise  in  England.  21 

In  England  it  seems  to  have  sprung  tacitly  from  the  doctrine  that  the 
Crown  is  subordinate  to  the  House  of  Commons.  This  doctrine  in  turn  grew 
out  of  the  exclusive  right, -so  frequently  vindicated  by  the  Commons,  of  origi- 
nating revenue  bills  and  raising  money.  Its  crowning  proofs,  however,  are  to 
be  found  in  the  execution  of  Charles  I,  in  the  supersedure  of  James  II  and 
election  of  William  of  Orange,  and  in  the  various  constitutional  laws  settling 
the  succession  to  the  crown,  and  prescribing  the  qualifications  and  conditions 
on  which  it  may  be  held.  The  doctrine  that  the  Throne  is  bound  to  obey  the 
House  of  Commons,  either  as  it  now  is  (when  a  question  arises)  or  as  it  shall 
be  after  one  election  has  tested  the  popular  will  on  ^hat  question,  has  doubtless 
been  tacitly  implied,  or  at  least  insisted  on,  by  Whig  statesmen  since  the  revo- 
lution of  1688.  Yet  we  find  George  III,  in  1782-83,  assenting  to  it  so  reluc- 
tantly, that,  rather  than  retire  Lord  North's  ministry,  which  had  led  the  war 
for  the  subjugation  of  America,  and  accept  the  new  Shelburne  ministry,  in 
which  Pitt  and  Fox,  the  champions  of  American  independence,  were  to  be 
leading  spirits,  he  declared  frequently  that  his  honor  would  compel  him  to 
abandon  the  throne  and  return  to  Hanover,  and  a  royal  yacht  was  actually 
summoned  and  in  waiting  to  bear  him  away.  Yet  in  due  time  he  yielded, 
content  to  escape  the  threatened  necessity  of  having  Fox  himself,  whom  he 
chiefly  hated,  premier.  So  modern,  however,  is  the  blunt  statement  of  this 
doctrine  that  the  King  is  subordinate  to  the  Commons,  that  there  is  a  flavor 
of  radicalism  in  the  exclamation  of  Mr.  Roebuck  in  1858:  "The  Crown,  it  is 
the  House  of  Commons !  " 

The  principle  undoubtedly  has  its  rise  in  the  power  of  impeachment,  which 
seems  to  have  inhered  in  the  House  of  Commons  almost  as  early  as  any  germs 
of  the  existence  of  that  House  can  be  traced.  Under  the  Saxon  constitution 
(to  1060)  there  was  no  House  of  Commons.  The  Witenagemol  (see  Freeman's 
article  in  November  number,  1876,)  included  in  a  crude  way  the  rudiments  of 
a  Council  of  State,  a  Court  of  Justice  and  a  House  of  Lords,  but  with  the  in- 
formality of  a  town  meeting.  It  was  more  like  the  consultation  of  an  Indian 
chief  with  his  braves,  or  of  a  Czar  with  the  heads  of  his  bureaus.  Pi-of.  Free- 
man's theory,  or  fancy,  that  it  was  a  council  of  all  who  chose  to  attend,  and 
that  the  present  House  of  Lords  is  the  regular  successor  of  the  early  mass  con- 
ventions of  the  common  people,  irrespective  of  rank,  reduced  to  paucity  of 
numbers  only  by  the  inability  and  disinclination  of  the  poorer  classes  to  sus- 
tain the  expense  of  attending,  is  barely  ingenious.  It  is  at  war  with  the  rule 
that  the  more  barbarous  and  military  the  epoch,  the  more  monarchical  or  aris- 
tocratic is  usually  the  organization  of  society.  Local  magistrates  and  county 
knights  may  have  occasionally  sat  in  the  same  body  as  the  Lords,  but  the  evi- 
dences are,  rather,  that  as  early  as  they  sat  at  all  they  sat  separately  as  a 
petitioning  body,  while  the  Lords  were  a  legislative  body.  In  1265,  fifty  years 
after  Magna  Charta,  borough  representation  was  first  actually  witnessed.  A 
century  later  the  House  of  Commons  was  strong  enough  to  complain  of  the 
King's  ministers,  and,  for  the  first  time,  to  exercise  its  power  of  impeachment. 
Hallam  declares,  that  at  the  close  of  the  fourteenth  century  their  consent  was 
necessary  to  the  levy  of  money  taxes,  and  to  the  enactment  of  laws,  and  that  they 


22  Responsible   Government. 

had  frequently  exercised  the  power  of  inspecting  and  controlling  the  adminis- 
tration of  government.  From  this  period  to  the  present  the  King's  ministers 
have  been  held  responsible,  in  some  degree,  by  the  House  of  Commons,  at  first 
rudely,  through  impeachments  and  executions,  but  afterward  politely,  through 
resignations;  yet,  down  to  the  reign  of  Henry  V  (1413),  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, in  form,  merely  petitioned.  The  King  enacted,  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  his  Lords.  An  impeachment  was  in  form  only  the  humble  petition 
of  the  Commons  that  the  King's  evil  advisers  might  be  arraigned  and  tried 
before  the  Lords. 

The  responsibility  which  began  as  an  individual  one  on  the  part  of  each 
minister,  became  a  collective  responsibility  on  the  part  of  "the  ministry  "  after 
the  revolution  of  1688.  Thenceforward  no  ministry  waited  for  the  jarring 
severity  of  impeachment,  but  when  outvoted  besought  the  Throne  to  appoint 
a  new  ministry,  or  if  the  Crown  believed  the  people  would  sustain  the  existing 
ministry,  then  to  dissolve  Parliament  and  order  an  election.  A  century  earlier 
Queen  Mary  had  thought  it  no  infraction  of  the  constitution  to  dissolve  several 
successive  Parliaments,  with  the  view  of  getting  one  subservient  to  her  wishes. 
But  since  the  accession  of  William  of  Orange,  and  especially  since  the  failure 
of  the  obstinate  course  of  George  III  towards  America,  the  theory  that  the 
King  must  have  no  personal  policy,  but  that  the  House  of  Commons  must  fix 
the  policy  of  the  King,  has  steadily  ripened  into  constitutional  law.  Sir  Wil- 
liam Blackstone,  writing  in  the  fourteenth  to  eighteenth  years  of  the  reign  of 
George  the  Third  (1774—8),  politely  and  loyally  fails  to  detect  the  doctrine. 
Alexander  Hamilton,  in  the  sixty-ninth  letter  in  the  Federalist,  implifdly  de- 
nies any  knowledge  of  the  doctrine  by  asserting  that  the  only  reason  the  King's 
veto  was  then  in  disuse  was  because  the  Crown  had  found  it  more  easy  to  con- 
trol Parliament  by  its  arts  than  by  its  prerogative  Blackstone  may  have 
ignored  the  doctrine  through  toryism,  and  Hamilton  may  have  written  sarcas- 
tically; but  there  is  more  evidence  that,  in  their  period,  .this  was  a  tenet  of 
Whig  politics  than  that  it  was  an  accepted  doctrine  of  the  English  constitution. 
History  will  perhaps  award  to  Queen  Victoria's  reign  the  credit  of  having  first 
displayed  the  conscientious  and  admirable  non-partisanship,  in  giving  prompt 
effect  to  the  wishes  of  either  party  as  it  obtained  the  ascendency  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  which  was  necessary  to  engraft  firmly  into  the  British  constitu- 
tion the  principle,  so  emphatically  announced  by  Roebuck,  that  the  Crown  is 
the  House  of  Commons.  This  the  Queen  has  done  without  seeking  to  influence 
personally  either  the  popular  elections,  by  which  the  complexion  of  the  House 
shomld  be  determined,  or  the  course  of  discussion  by  which  its  majorities  should 
be  controlled. 

The  English  ministry  at  present  consists  of  thirty-one  persons,  of  whom 
from  eleven  to  sixteen  form  the  cabinet,  the  others  being  usually  heads  of 
bureaus,  but  not  consulting  officers  of  the  Crown.  The  cabinet  includes  the 
First  Lord  of  the  Treasury,  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  Lerd  Chancellor, 
President  of  the  Council,  Lord  Privy  Seal,  Secretaries  of  State  for  the  Home 
Department,  for  Foreign  Affairs,  for  the  Colonies,  for  War,  and  for  India,  First 
Lord  of  the  Admiralty,  First  Commissioner  of  Works,  Chief  Secretary  for  Ire- 


The  Initiative  in  Legislation.  23 

land,  and  generally  also  the  President  of  the  Local  Government  Board,  Vice- 
President  of  the  Education  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council,  and  the  Chancellor 
of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster. »  The  selection  of  the  cabinet  from  among  the  min- 
istry is  not  always  the  same.  Generally  the  Premier  has  been  the  First  Lord 
of  the  Treasury,  sometimes  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  sometimes  both; 
and  sometimes,  as  in  the  case  of  William  Pitt,  a  Secretary  of  State. 

The  Crown,  through  its  ministry,  takes  the  initiative  usually  in  legislation, 
preparing,  proposing,  and  defending  in  Parliament  the  bills  and  measures  on 
which  it  stakes  its  success  as  an  administration.  So  long  as  these  measures 
are  concurred  in  by  the  last  elected  House,  they  are  presumed  to  accord  with 
the  will  of  the  voting  constituency.  By  this  very  step  the  administration  in 
power  becomes  responsible,  from  the  outset,  for  the  measures  it  introduces, 
and  equally  for  failing  to  introduce  such  measures  as  it  needs  for  the  due 
operation  of  the  government.  There  is  no  shirking  the  responsibility  by  say- 
ing: "We  recommended  such  a  measure,  but  the  House  refused  to  pass  it. 
We  piped  and  ye  would  not  dance."  The  whole  responsibility  is  thrown  on 
the  administration,  both  with  reference  to  executive  and  legislative  policies, 
and  kept  there  until  it  resigns.  There  can  be  no  deadlock,  no  checkmate. 
When  the  House  will  not*pass  the  administration's  measures,  it  means  that 
they  want  a  new  administration.  Parties  array  themselves,  therefore,  first  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  then  at  large  throughout  the  country,  for  or  against  this 
living  measure.  They  do  not  ask  whether  the  ancestors  of  those  who  vote 
with  them  on  this  measure,  fought  for  or  against  their  own  ancestors,  at  the 
Battle  of  Hastings,  or  in  the  Wars  of  the  Roses. 

Here  begins  the  contrast  with  our  system  in  which  the  administration  has 
no  initiative  in  legislation,  except  to  suggest,  some  measure  in  a  vague  way 
by  message,  which  amounts  to  nothing  until  some  bill  is  presented  embodying 
it.  When  the  bill  is  so  presented,  it  is  the  work  of  the  member  so  presenting 
it  only,  not  of  any  administration  or  party.  It  has  no  assurance  of  any  sup- 
port, unless  it  has  previously  been  agreed  on  in  secret  party  caucus,  and  it 
never  can  secure  a  harmonious  or  majority  caucus  unless  it  is  germane  to, 
and  directly  in  furtherance  of,  the  one  idea  on  which  that  party  is  founded. 
For  instance,  the  Congressional  caucus  of  a  party  founded  on  the  anti-slavery 
idea  can  never  agree  on  a  bill  of  any  kind  relating  to  finance.  The  caucus  of 
a  party  formed  to  vigorously  prosecute  a  war  can  never  agree  except  on  vigor- 
ously prosecuting  the  war.  The  peace  issue  of  hard  and  soft  money,  or  pro- 
tection and  free  trade,  would  split  it  through  the  middle.  The  party  caucus 
comes  as  near  as  our  system  admits  of  to  making  a  party  responsible  for  a 
bill:  but  as  it  only  agrees  on  dead  questions,  it  is  worthless  as  an  element  of 
responsibility.  It  chiefly  represents  the  vis  inertice  which  causes  a  party  to 
move  on  in  a  given  direction,  because  the  track  is  laid  in  that  line,  after  the 
interests  of  the  country  require  it  to  advance  in  some  other  direction. - 

The  legal  status  of  a  member  of  the  British  cabinet  is  that  of  member  of 
the  House  of  Lords  or  House  of  Commons,  the  latter  being  the  more  effective 
and  usual  position;  and  also  member  of  the  Queen's  Privy  Council,  a  some- 
what indefinite  body  of  eminent  persons,  including  many  not  in  the  cabinet  or 


24  Responsible   Government. 

ministry.  It  is  as  if  the  President,  of  the  United  States  should,  by  usage, 
select  his  cabinet  from  among  the  more  prominent,  members  of  the  Senate  and 
House,  these  members  combining  to  perform  their  representative  functions  in 
addition  to  their  cabinet  duties.  The  chief  legislative  duty  of  an  English  cab- 
inet officer,  after  devising  measures  for  the  consideration  of  Parliament,  is  to 
defend  those  measures  on  the  floor  of  either  House.  The  chief  duty  of  the 
leaders  of  the  opposition  is  to  carefully  avoid  opposing  a  government  measure 
otherwise  than  by  criticism  of  its  details,  unless  they  have  something  better 
and  more  in  harmony  with  the  popular  will  to  propose.  This  induces  that 
habitual  moderation,  caution  and  candor  which  distinguish  English  speeches 
in  Parliament. 

When  the  wary  and  prudent  leader  of  the  opposition  sees  his  antagonist 
adopt  a  policy  on  which  he  thinks  he  can  be  overthrown,  first  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  then,  if  necessary,  before  the  people,  he  attacks  the  offending 
measure,  and  the  struggle  in  debate  is  not  for  the  empty  applause  of  the  gal- 
leries, but  for  the  control  of  the  government.  Each  party  puts  forward  its 
most  powerful  yet  most  judicious  combatants.  It  is  not  a  contest  of  lung 
power  or  vituperation,  but  of  pungent  wit,  of  polite  humor,  of  clear  statesman- 
ship, of  familiarity  with  the  details  of  government,'of  dignity  of  character,  of 
judgment  in  jurisprudence,  of  diplomacy  and  tact.  Such  a  struggle  over  a 
critical  question  sorts  men  and  develops  statesmen,  by  an  analysis  far  finer 
than  any  that  can  be  made  by  our  politicians  in  national  conventions,  or  by 
any  voters  at  the  polls.  The  younger  Pitt  and  Fox,  by  the  mastery  of  genius, 
both  led  in  these  debates  when  they  had  scarcely  passed  their  majority.  But 
Gladstone  and  Disraeli  were  nearly  thirty  years  in  Parliament  before  they 
attained  to  the  leadership. 

The  ministry  in  power,  if  beaten  in  such  a  struggle,  may  either  resign  or 
advise  the  Queen  to  dissolve  Parliament,  and  appeal  to  the  voting  constituen- 
cies. If  the  latter  course  is  taken,  and  the  voters  sustain  the  existing  ministry, 
it  will  be  indicated  by  the  return  of  a  new  House  of  Commons  favorable  to  the 
measure  which  the  last  one  opposed.  It  will  be,  therefore,  carried,  and  become 
a  law.  The  former  ministry  will  remain  in  power,  and  the  former  leaders  of 
the  opposition  in  Parliamerit,  if  re-elected  to  their  seats,  as  they  are  practically 
certain  to  be,  will  remain  leaders  of  the  opposition  only.  If.  however,  the 
voters  sustain  the  Parliamentary  opposition,  then  the  new  Parliament,  will  be 
of  the  same  complexion  as  the  previous  one,  and  the  defeated  ministry,  with- 
out waiting  for  impeachment,  resign  their  portfolios.  The  Queen  invites  the 
leader  of  the  opposition  to  form  the  cabinet,  and  he,  accepting  the  Premiership 
for  himself,  surrounds  himself  by  advisors  of  his  own  party,  and  the  retiring 
ministers  re-enter  the  House  of  Commons,  of  which  they  have  all  the  time  been 
members,  and  resume  their  places  as  leaders  of  the  opposition  to  the  new 
administration.  It  is  essential  to  this  system  that  members  of  Parliament 
shall  run  for  any  borough  or  county  they  please,  without  regard  to  residence, 
as  in  this  way  only  can  the  country  be  sure  of  returning  the  statesmen  whose 
services  are  most  needed,  by  assigning  the  leaders  of  each  party  to  boroughs 
or  counties  whose  political  complexion  will  admit  of  their  election. 


Duration  of  Ministries.  25 

This  is  surely  the  most  admirable  system  ever  devised  for  sorting  and 
assaying  Parliament,  for  bringing  out  its  fine  gold  and  holding  back  its  dross; 
for  maintaining  at  all  times  the  ablest  advocacy  of  government,  measures  and 
the  most  candid  and  yet  scrutinizing  criticism ;  for  maintaining  in  statesmen 
complete  independence  of  party  or  locality,  and  yet  for  keeping  the  adminis- 
tration responsible  to  and  in  harmony  with  the  Legislature,  and  both  respon- 
sible to  and  in  accord  with  the  people. 

The  periods  during  which  administrations  have  held  power,  have  varied 
from  a  few  months,  as  under  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  to  sixteen  years,  as 
under  William  Pitt.  Parliaments  are  limited  by  law  to  a  duration  of  seven 
years,  and  have  actually  averaged  about  three  and  a  half.  One  Parliament 
may  outlast  several  cabinets,  or  one  cabinet  may  outlast  'a  series  of  Parlia- 
ments, but  every  popular  election  must  change  the  complexion  either  of  a 
ministry  or  of  Parliament.  Thus,  the  Earl  of  Liverpool  became  Premier  on 
June  8,  1812.  and  continued  such  until  April  11,  1827,  holding  power  nearly 
fifteen  years,  surviving  the  demise  of  his  King,  George  III,  and  of  four  suc- 
cessive Parliaments,  and  retiring  during  the  pendency  of  the  fifth.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Parliament  elected  November  4,  1852,  saw  the  Earl  of  Derby, 
who  was  then  Premier,  succeeded  in  the  following  month  by  the  Earl  of  Aber- 
deen, and  in  1855  by  Viscount  Palmerston. 

Disraeli  first  rose  to  the  Premiership  on  February  25.  1868,  resigned  his 
power  to  Gladstone  on  December  9th  following,  the  people  approving  of  Glad- 
stone's policy  of  the  disestablishment  of  the  English  Church  in  Ireland  against 
Disraeli's  opposition.  Gladstone  continued  in  the  Premiership  until  February 
21,  1874,  when  he  was  again  succeeded  by  Disraeli,  the  elections  called  pur- 
suant to  a  dissolution  of  Parliament,  in  the  month  previous  having  resulted  in 
the  triumph  of  Disraeli's  conservative  policy,  the  people  being  opposed  to  the 
disestablishment  of  the  Church  in  England  and  other  kindred  policies  which 
were  involved  in  Gladstone's  continuance  in  power. 

The  average  duration  of  ministries  since  1800  has  been  three  years  and 
eight  months.  In  short,  while  the  right  of  appealing  to  the  people  on  living 
issues  exists  every  moment,  neither  elections  nor  changes  of  administration, 
considered  singly,  are  more  frequent  than  our  Presidential  contests.  Both 
combined  work  a  change  either  in  the  administration  or  in  the  Parliamentary 
majority,  at  the  average,  once  in  twenty  months.  An  election  in  America  is 
as  likely  to  throw  the  Executive  out  of  harmony  with  the  Legislature  as  not, 
but  under  the  system  of  responsible  government  every  election  restores  har- 
mony between  the  Executive  and  Legislature,  and  causes  the  machinery  of 
government  to  move  on  more  smoothly. 

The  revolutions  in  France  for  a  century  past  consist  of  vibrations  of  the 
people  between  Bourbonism,  which  acknowledges  no  system  of  responsibility 
to  the  people  whatever,  either  in  king  or  ministry ;  Bonapartism,  which  is 
a  modification  of  Cassarism  or  absolutism,  acknowledging  a  certain  obligation 
to  popular  suffrage,  the  army  and  the  church,  but  refusing  to  make  this  obliga- 
tion tangible  by  allowing  the  ministry  to  be  held  responsible  to  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies;  Orleanism,  under  Louis  Philippe  and  his  Minister,  Guizot,  which 


26  Responsible  Government. 

adopted  and  attempted  to  maintain  the  system  of  responsible  ministry  and 
dissolvable  legislatures,  substantially  as  in  England;  and  republicanism, 
which  in  its  earlier  experiments  relied  only  on  short  terms  of  office  and  im- 
peachment as  a  means  of  holding  rulers  responsible,  but  which  in  its  last 
experiment,  the  existing  republic,  has  established  for  our  example  a  more  per- 
manent executive,  a  ministry  responsible  to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  and  a 
dissolvable  Chamber.  By  the  constitution  of  February  25,  1875,  the  President 
is  elected,  for  a  term  of  seven  years,  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  of  the  Senate 
and  Chamber  of  Deputies  united  in  National  Assembly.  He  is  removable  only 
on  impeachment  for  high  treason,  but  every  official  act  or  order  on  his  part 
must  be  countersigned  by  a  minister.  Each  minister  is  responsible  individu- 
ally for  his  personal  acts  to  the  Chambers,  and  "The  Ministry"  as  a  body  is 
responsible  for  its  measures,  which  responsibility  it  accepts  by  resigning  when 
outvoted  in  the  Chambers  unless  the  President,  with  the  assent  of  the  Senate, 
shall  dissolve  the  Chamber,  in  which  event  an  election,  must  follow  within 
three  months.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  President  and  Senate  com- 
bined might  continue  an  unpopular  ministry  in  power,  and  this  may  prove  an 
imperfection  in  the  working  of  the  French  system.  The  President  is  re-eligible, 
and  has  command  of  the  army  and  the  usual  incidents  of  executive  power. 
The  Senate  is  composed  of  225  Senators,  elected  for  nine  years,  by  the  depart- 
ments of  France  and  the  Colonies,  and  75  life-members,  first  nominated  in  the 
joint  session  of  the  Senate  and  Chamber  of  Deputies,  known  as  the  National 
Assembly,  and  afterward  elected  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  alone.  The 
Chamber  consists  of  one  deputy  for  each  arrondissement,  and  of  one  for  every 
100,000  population  which  any  arrondissement  may  contain  in  excess  of  the  first. 
The  present  assembly  was  elected  in  1871.  The  system  has  not  yet  been  tested 
by  a  popular  election,  but,  judging  from  its  workings  thus  far,  it  is  better 
adapted  than  any  hitherto  known  to  France  to  secure  sensitiveness  to  the  will 
of  the  people,  and  to  develop  powerful  parliamentary  statesmen. 

The  Austro-Hungarian  Empire,  under  the  Constitution  of  1867,  presents 
apparently  one  of  the  most  complicated  and  yet  skillful  combinations,  extant, 
of  local  self-government,  or  state's  rights  and  federative  union,  with  government 
by  responsible  ministers  and  dissolvable  legislatures.  Except  the  Emperor, 
no  official  has  a  certain  term  of  office.  The  empire  is  dual  in  form,  embracing 
the  two  independent  kingdoms  of  Austria  and  Hungary,  which  are  united  in 
their  sovereign,  their  army,  a  part  of  their  treasury,  and  their  foreign  affairs, 
but  each  of  which  has  its  own  legislature  and  its  own  responsible  ministry  in 
all  other  matters.  The  Legislature  of  Austria  proper  is  federal,  consisting,  in 
its  Upper  House,  of  nobles,  archbishops,  and  life-members  nominated  by  the 
Emperor,  and,  in  its  Lower  House,  of  353  delegates,  nominated  by  the  Provin- 
cial Diets  (state  legislatures)  of  17  provinces,  and  elected  by  the  direct  vote 
of  all  citizens  possessing  a  very  small  property  qualification. 

The  Reichstag  of  Hungary,  on  the  other  hand,  is  itself  a  local  legislature, 
though  it  admits  into  its  Upper  House  5  magnates  in  all,  and  in  its  Lower 
House  110  delegates,  from  Croatia,  Slavonia,  and  Transylvania. 

The  Hungarian  and  Austrian  legislatures  unite  in  choosing  "  the  Delega- 


In  Austro-Hungary.  27 

tions,"  which  are  a  joint  Imperial  Congress  of  120  members,  for  passing  on 
questions  common  to  the  entire  kingdom;  whose  membership  is  very  simply 
composed  of  sixty  members,  chosen  by  each  legislature,  twenty  by  its  Upper 
and  forty  by  its  Lower  House.  Thus  Austria  has  three  grades  of  federally 
united  legislatures — namely,  the  Imperial,  Austrian,  and  Provincial.  Hungary 
has  two,  the  Imperial  and  Hungarian.  Three  of  the  Emperor's  ministers — 
namely,  his  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  for  the  whole  Empire,  his  Minister  of 
War  for  the  whole  Empire,  and  his  Minister  of  Finance  for  the  whole  Empire — 
are  responsible  to  the  Delegations.  Besides,  there  is  a  ministry  in  eight  depart- 
ments for  Austria  responsible  to  the  Austrian  Legislature — namely,  the  Presi- 
dency of  the  Council,  and  Ministries  of  the  Interior,  of  Finance,  of  Education 
and  Religion,  of  Agriculture,  of  Commerce,  of  National  Defense,  and  of  Justice. 
A  similar  ministry  of  nine  persons,  including  a  minister  near  the  King's 
person,  ad  latus,  is  responsible  to  the  Hungarian  Legislature.  The  sovereign 
is  King  of  Hungary,  Emperor  of  Austria,  and  in  acts  common  to  the  whole  em- 
pire is  styled  Emperor  of  Austria-Hungary.  The  seventeen  Provincial  Diets 
of  Austria  are  without  local  cabinets,  their  executive  officers  being  either  ap- 
pointed by  the  Crown  or  elected  by  the  people  and  approved  by  the  Crown. 
This  admirable  compromise,  by  which  complete  autonomy  is  granted  to  Hun- 
gary without  lessening  the  dignity  of  the  Empire,  is  mainly  resultant  from  the 
Statesmanship  of  Von  Beust  applied  to  reconcile  the  unconquerable  resistance 
of  the  Magyar  race  to  Austrian  subjugation,  and  the  equally  persistent  determ- 
ination of  the  House  of  Hapsburg  not  to  abandon  its  Hungarian  kingdom. 
Wh.-it  the  Hungarians  failed  to  secure  by  their  gallant  revolution  under  Kos- 
siith,  in  1848,  they  fully  secured  by  passive  refusal  to  send  representatives  to 
an  Austrian  Legislature.  The  history  and  success  of  this  example  of  passive 
resistance  would  form  an  exceedingly  interesting  lesson  to  all  revolutionists, 
indicating,  as  it  does,  that  peaceful  methods  may  often  be  found  effective,  where 
warlike  methods  fail,  to  disinthrall  a  subjugated  and  conquered  people. 

In  the  states  composing  the  present  German  Empire,  the  principle  of 
responsible  ministry  is  avowed  by  Bavaria,  Saxony,  Baden,  Oldenburg,  Bruns- 
wick, Saxe-Weimar  and  Saxe-Meiningen,  while  it  is  rejected  by  most  or  all  of 
the  other  states,  by  Prussia,  and  by  the  Imperial  Government  itself.  The  Im- 
perial Legislature  consists  of  an  Upper  House  (Bundesrath)  of  59  members, 
elected  by  the  states,  of  whom  Prussia  has  17,  and  a  Lower  House  (Reichstag), 
897  in  number,  chosen  by  universal  suffrage,  Prussia  electing  236.  The  min- 
istry of  the  empire  consists  of  a  Chancellor  (Von  Bismarck),  who  is  responsible 
only  to  the  Emperor,  who  in  turn  rules  by  divine  right,  and  is  responsible 
only  to  God.  The  struggle  in  Prussia  on  the  organization  of  the  army,  in  the 
years  1858  to  1864,  was  practically  a  struggle  of  the  legislature  for  responsible 
government — -that  is,  for  the  power  to  control  the  Crown  by  refusing  to  vote 
supplies;  but  the  King  first  proved  his  power  to  go  on  and  maintain  the  army 
at  his  own  standard  by  the  aid  of  the  army  itself,  without  a  legislative  vote 
of  supplies,  and  then  during  a  succession  of  vigorous  wars,  redounding  greatly 
to  the  glory  of  the  German  name,  vindicated  the  military  sagacity  of  the 
course  he  had  pursued  in  abridging  the  liberties  of  the  people. 


28        .  Responsible   Government. 

The  German -people  are  now  in  fact  being  schooled  in  the  art  of  government 
and  educated  in  its  forms,  without  being  all  at  once  intrusted  with  its  real  power. 
A  deep  revei-ence  for  scholarship,  and  especially  for  learning  in  jurisprudence, 
is  manifested  wherever  the  German  race  bears  sway.  Learned  doctors  of  the 
law  who  have  been  graduates,  and  some  of  them  instructors  in  the  universities, 
and  "who  have  given  their  lives  to  the  study  of  jurisprudence,  are  accorded  a 
position  in  practical  legislation  and  administration  side  by  side  with  successful 
generals  and  noblemen,  a  position  which  in  America  is  only  to  be  won  by  a 
happy  faculty  of  telling  anecdotes  on  the  "  stump,"  or  by  expending  several 
thousands  of  dollars  in  buying  a  political  convention. 

In  Russia->  where  there  is  no  elected  parliament  whatever,  but  the  entire 
administration  is  carried  on  by  bureaus,  responsible  to  the  Emperor  alone, 
there  is  not  yet  laid  even  the  foundation  on  which  responsible  government 
could  be  based.  In  Switzerland  there  is  a  system  of  government  by  a  some, 
what  flexible  and  rotating  ministry  without  any  other  executive  than  the  head 
of  the  ministry;  but  there  is  no  dissolvable  legislature,  and  therefore  no  other 
responsibility  than  results  from  short  terms  of  office.  In  Brazil,  representation 
in  one  Imperial  legislature,  federally  united  with  many  provincial  legislatures 
has  been  introduced,  but  the  machinery  of  government  is  by  far  too  autocratic 
to  admit  of  responsibility  to  the  legislature  being  yet  accepted  by  the  Emperor 
or  his  ministry,  except  that  the  latter  can  not  plead  the  Emperor's  orders  in 
defense  or  extenuation  if  they  violate  the  law. 

In  at  least  one  colony  of  Australia  (West  Australia),  during  the  year  1875, 
the  attention  of  the  people  was  so  directly  called  to  the  subject  of  responsible 
government  as  to  result  in  its  being  substituted  for  the  system  of  fixed  terms 
of  office  which  they  had  previously  tried. 

We  have  thus  cursorily  opened  up  rather  than  answered  our  first  question, 
namely,  What  is  responsible  government  as  exhibited  in  the  various  national 
examples  now  extant?  To  answer  it  fully  by  tracing  the  workings  and  results 
of  the  system  in  each  would  expand  this  brief  article  into  a  political  library. 
In  all  these  governments  it  operates  alike  to  bring  on  elections  only  when  the 
decision  of  the  people  is  needed  on  some  great  issue  or  policy;  to  allow  no  such 
issue  to  be  decided  or  acted  upon  without  an  appeal  to  the  people;  to  divide 
parties  only  on  living  issues,  thus  constantly  burying  dead  prejudices;  to  edu- 
cate office-holders  into  a  high  and  honorable  sense  of  their  accountability  to 
the  people;  to  make  statesmanship  a  permanent  pursuit  followed  by  a  skilled 
class  of  men,  not  a  political  accident  availed  of  by  charlatans  and  adventurers; 
in  short,  to  render  politics  honest  and  respectable. 

Our  second  inquiry  is,  whether  responsible  government  is  indigenous  only 
in  monarchies,  and  an  exotic  among  republics;  in  short,  does  it  require  a 
king?  Many  republics,  doubtless,  have  existed  without  it.  The  nearest  ap- 
proach Rome  ever  made  to  the  principle  of  responsibility  to  the  people  was, 
very  unlike  in  method,  and  consisted  in  the  theory  that  no  law_(fer)  could  be 
adopted  without  the  consent  of  the  entire  people  voting  in  Comitia.  Among 
modern  republics  only  France  has  adopted  it,  unless  we  recognize  the  some- 
what dubious  experiments  in  Nicaragua  and  Paraguay.  All  these  are  chiefly 


Fixed  Terms  Promote  Swindling.  29 

significant  as  showing  that  of  late  no  new  republics  are  started  on  our  system. 
Even  the  recently  '-convict"  settlements  of  England  in  Australia,  one  and  all, 
discard  fixed  terms  and  demand  responsibility.  Much  of  the  absence  of  this 
principle  from  the  Mexican  and  South  American  republics  is  due  to  its  absence, 
in  1780,  from  the  United  States.  It  was  absent  here  because  it  was  not  then 
well  matured  in  England;  because  our  statesmen,  as  their  writings  show,  were 
wholly  unfamiliar  with  it;  because  our  colonial  governors  had  no  ministers; 
and  because  the  colonists  thought  short,  fixed  terms  of  office  were  the  very  best, 
means  of  holding  officers  to  account,  in  which  impression  they  were  evidently 
in  error.  A  comparison  of  these  data  shows  that  this  principle  has  developed 
more  frequently  in  connection  with  a  permanent  executive.  But  as  this  is 
largely  owing  to  our  own  example,  a  reversal  of  our  example  would  probably, 
in  due  time,  reverse  the  argument. 

Our  third  question  is,  Can  the  United  States  get  on  well  or  at  all  without 
this  system  of  responsibility  ?  It  involves  an  inquiry  into  the  evils  incident 
to  fixed  terms  of  office. 

The  chief  glory  of  republics  is,  not  that  they  promise  the  most  trained 
capacity  in  the  administration  of  affairs;  for  this  they  have  seldom  been  sup- 
posed by  any  class  of  statesmen  or  publicists  to  do;  not  that  they  promote  the 
highest  degree  of  order;  for  they  are  certainly  more  anarchical  than  other 
forms  of  government ;  but  that  they  are  supposed  to  represent  most  faithfully 
the  interests  and  will  of  the  people.  If,  therefore,  with  less  of  wisdom  and 
of  order,  they  combine  less  fidelity  to  popular  interests,  their  cause  is  lost.  It 
is  an  axiom  in  human  nature  that  agents  who  can  not  be  held  to  account  can 
not  be  held  to  fidelity.  There  never  was  an  exception  to  the  rule,  and  can 
never  be.  Suppose  a  principal  in  New  York  to  have  a  property  in  Chicago 
which  he  is  unavoidably  compelled  to  depute  an  agent  to  manage  for  him.  Sup- 
pose an  individual  capable  of  being  so  absurd  as  to  agree  to  appoint  an  agent 
for  a  fixed  term,  say  four  years,  with  no  other  power  of  calling  him  to  account 
in  the  mean  time  than  either  to  impeach  him  for  crime  or  to  remove  him  and 
appoint  another  agent,  also  for  a  like  fixed  term.  Who  does  not  see  that  under 
such  a  system  the  most  honest  agents  would  be  turned  into  swindlers?  Sup- 
pose, on  the  other  hand,  he  should  depute  two  men,  each  to  watch  the  other  and 
report.  Each  should  be  agent  until  the  other  could  prove  him  at  fault;  then 
the  other  should  take  his  place  until  proved  guilty  of  like  fault.  The  estate 
would  be  as  well  managed  as  if  it  were  under  the  direct  charge  of  the  principal. 

Our  so-called  republican  system  is  that  of  change  of  agents  at  the  end  of 
fixed  terms.  It  is  incurably  bad,  because  it  does  not  make  honesty  promote  a 
politician's  personal  interest  so  much  as  dishonesty.  An  irresponsible  trustee 
for  a  fixed  term  has  the  largest  possible  interest,  in  robbing  the  trust  fund.  A 
system  of  government  which,  to  work  successfully,  demands  that  men  shall  be 
self-sacrificing,  or  that  human  nature  should  be  abolished,  is  a  failure  from  the 
start.  The  responsible  system  says  to  every  office-holder,  "  Ye  know  not  the 
day  nor  the  hour/'  Therefore  he  must  be  always  ready  to  render  his  account. 
No  pains  on  the  part  of  the  people,  in  nominating  or  electing  officers,  can  coun- 
teract the  incurable  evils  of  a  system  which  inherently  tends  to  promote  in- 
competency  and  knavery. 


30  Responsible  Government. 

For  instance,  in  1858  the  House  of  Representatives  became  Republican,  but 
by  our  system  of  fixed  terms  the  President  could  neither  be  changed  nor  check- 
mated until  1860.  The  intermediate  two  years  witnessed  the  anomalous  spec- 
tacle of  the  officers  in  charge  of  a  government  conspiring  for  its  overthrow, 
distributing  its  army  throughout  the  South  and  discharging  it,  with  the  ex- 
pectation that  its  officers,  rank  and  file,  would  enlist  in  the  Southern  service, 
and  sending  its  arms  and  munitions  of  war  where  enemies  could  best  capture 
them.  Had  the  principle  of  responsibility  existed,  Buchanan  would  have  had 
to  appoint  a  Republican  cabinet,  consisting  of  men  like  Seward,  Lincoln,  Chase, 
and  Sumner,  in  1858,  and  the  Civil  War  would  perhaps  have  been  impossible. 

But  as  our  elections  are  held  solely  because  we  have  reached  the  period  for 
holding  them,  not  because  there  is  any  issue  to  be  voted  on;  as  our  mixed  and 
muddled  issues  under  the  system  of  fixed  terms  i-elate  to  the  past  only,  not  to  the 
future;  as  voting  on. past  issues  is  totally  frivolous  at  the  best,  many  of  our 
voters,  as  if  to  make  them  as  frivolous  as  possible,  vote  as  far  back  in  the  past 
as  is  necessary  to  gratify  their  innermost  spite.  Put  up  an  Orangeman  in  a 
Catholic  district,  and  lo!  the  issues  relate  to  Cromwell's  invasion  of  Ireland, 
two  centuries  ago.  Put  up  the  grandson  of  a  Federalist,  and  the  issue  is  the 
War  of  1812.  From  1840  to  1860  all  Irishmen  voted  the  Democratic  ticket, 
though  it  meant  the  extension  of  slavery,  because,  forty  years  earlier,  Demo- 
cratic leaders  had  given  the  ballot  to  the  Irishmen.  After  President  Jackson 
had  crushed  the  National  Bank,  the  people  voted  on  its  propriety.  After  Polk 
had  made  war  on  Mexico,  the  people  voted  on  whether  he  ought  to  have  done 
so.  After  Texas  was  annexed,  the  people  voted  on  that.  And  after  the  com- 
promises of  1851  concerning  slavery,  the  people  kept  on  voting  as  to  whether 
those  compromises  were  right  or  not,  until  the  breach  widened  into  war.  Had 
we  been  under  responsible  government,  the  people  would  have  voted  on  the 
compromise  before  it  was  adopted;  and  that,  and  that  alone,  can  make  any 
legislation  a  finality,  Officers  elected  in  the  South  on  the  platform  of  extend- 
ing slavery  into  the  territories,  and  in  the  North  on  that  of  keeping  it  out, 
decided,  without  consulting  the  people  on  either  side,  that  the  South  would 
rebel,  and  that  the  North  would  subdue  the  rebellion.  In  1864-65  the  Repub- 
lican party,  elected  on  the  issue  of  vigorously  prosecuting  the  war,  enfranchised 
the  negro,  of  course  without  consulting  the  people.  Having  done  so,  certain 
congresses,  elected  on  the  crab  principle  to  ratify  these  things  already  done, 
proceeded  without  consulting  the  people,  to  contract  the  currency.  Thus,  under 
our  system  of  fixed  terms,  the  issues  pending  when  legislatures  are  elected  are 
seldom  those  on  which  they  are  to  act,  but  generally  those  on  which  they  have 
already  acted.  Hence,  while  the  people  are  voting  when  it  is  too  late,  legisla- 
tors are  without  instructions  and  without  any  authoritative  mode  of  getting 
them.  This  causes  legislation  to  drift  without  a  helm,  over  the  wide  waste  of 
individual  speculation  and  aimless^  disorganized,  nomadic  effort.  For  fifteen 
years  past  Congress  has  had  no  financial  policy  whatever,  and  has  been  in- 
capable of  maturing  one,  solely  from  this  inherent  defect  in  its  organization. 
Each  bill  that  any  one  member  introduces  is  assailed  by  every  other  through 
jealousy,  lest  some  one  member  may  get  the  credit  of  affording  financial 


Our  Elections  a  Farce.  31 

relief  to  the  country.  In  such  an  event  every  other  member,  under  our  system, 
sees  only  detriment  to  himself,  whereas,  under  the  "  responsible  "  system,  the 
measure  introduced  by  the  administration  would  first  be  devised  by  the  wisdom 
of  the  entire  cabinet,  which  would  give  it  a  prestige  and  probability  of  wisdom 
which  no  measure  devised  by  a  single  member  could  have;  it  will  then  be 
criticised  by  the  opposition,  but  not  opposed  unless  the  opposition  are  ready  to 
name  a  definite  policy  against  it  and  make  it  a  test  question.  Thus,  under  the 
responsible  system  the  opposition  are  driven  to  unite  upon  a  policy  or  meas- 
ure, as  well  as  the  administration.  There  can  be  no  irresponsible  guerilla 
warfare  pursued  against  a  measure.  All  measures  are  in  effect  either  those 
of  the  administration  or  the  opposition,  and  each  member  finds  it  to  his  interest 
to  support  either  the  one  or  the  other.  This  avoids  paralysis  of  legislation,  a 
result  which  is  of  infinite  value  in  that  very  large  class  of  questions  of  busi- 
ness and  finance,  in  which  the  adoption  of  either  one  of  twenty  proposed  plans 
is  better  than  the  failure  to  adopt  any. 

In  no  work  on  political  science,  which  has  yet  come  under  my  notice,  is  this 
effect  of  fixed  terms  of  office,  in  both  executive  officers  and  legislatures,  to 
cause  paralysis  of  legislation,  or  even  to  cause  the  people  to  vote  on  dead  issues, 
pointed  out.  It  is  not  remarkable,  therefore,  that  neither  legislators  nor  peo- 
ple have  given  it  their  reflection.  When  they  do,  they  can  not  fail  to  admit 
that  the  system  renders  our  elections  vapid  and  meaningless,  dishonest  and 
irrelevant. 

"  Does  the  pending  question  before  Congress  relate  to  the  currency  ?  Then 
vote  for  Jones,  because  he  is  sound  on  the  negro  and  on  the  war."  Why  rebuke 
respectable  voters  for  despising  the  polls?  It  is  the  man  who  votes  under  such 
a  system  that  is  the  fool.  Pulpits  filled  by  preachers  who  never  vote,  wax 
eloquent  in  rebuking  pews  filled  with  merchants  that  never  vote.  The  conduct 
of  both  is  sounder  than  their  theory.  When  voting  can  do  no  good,  it  is  the 
part  of  men  of  sense  to  cease  voting;  and  voting  to  indorse  this  or  that  politi- 
cal party,  by  electing  its  candidates,  does  no  good. 

Nothing  can  be  more  conducive  to  universal  dishonesty  and  fraud  in  poli- 
tics, than  to  call  on  the  people  periodically  to  vote  on  that  inextricable  muddle 
of  shams,  prejudices  and  impositions,  that  perfectly  irrelevant  proposition,  "the 
record  of  a  political  party." 

But  while  in  any  state  of  the  country  it  converts  popular  elections  into  a 
farce,  in  some  exigencies  it  renders  them  only  less  disastrous,  in  themselves, 
than  a  financial  crisis  or  a  war.  The  entire  campaign  of  1876,  however  it  may 
result,  has  been  an  unmitigated  curse  to  the  country.  When  it  began,  the 
country  was  at  peace,  and,  had  we  been  under  a  responsible  government,  no 
issue  could  have  been  made  up  for  the  people  to  vote  upon,  except  one  on  which 
the  Administration  had  taken  one  side  and  the  House  of  Representatives  the 
other,  and  it  must  have  related  to  the  immediate  business  before  Congress, 
which  was  then  the  question  of  expansion  of  the  currency.  A  canvass  on  such 
a  question,  could  it  have  been  had,  would  have  obliterated  color  lines,  rebel  lines, 
loyal  lines,  and  all  other  lines  connected  with  slavery,  the  negro,  and  the  war, 
and  would  have  been  infinitely  serviceable  and  instructive  to  the  country.  But 


32  Responsible   Government. 

under  our  crab  system  of  going  for\vard  by  looking  backward,  the  only  ques- 
tion possible  was  the  utterly  pernicious,  useless  and  infernal  one,  "  Will  you 
vote  to  indorse  the  past  record  of  the  Democratic  Party  or  of  the  Republican 
Party?"  or,  as  it  soon  came  to  be  put,  "Will  you  vote  for  the  Union  or  for  the 
Rebellion  of  fifteen  years  ago?"  This  re-opened  all  the  issues  of  the  war, 
brought  our  submerged  hell  up  again  to  the  surface,  and  sent  it  round 
belching  blood  and  brimstone  through  the  land.  Can  a  system  be  more  fatal 
to  liberty  than  one  which  renders  a  popular  election  a  national  calamity,  which, 
instead  of  instructing  administrations,  revives  civil  war? 

All  these  evils  are  inherent,  not  in  republicanism,  but  in  irresponsibility 
— in  fixed  terms  of  office.  Give  England  the  system  of  fixed  official  terms  and 
stated  periodical  elections,  and  her  elections  will  soon  be  as  meaningless  and 
her  officials  as  contemptible  as  ours.  Her  statesmanship  will  fade  into  a  mere 
memory,  as  ours  has  done,  and  fraud  and  force  will  run  the  empire.  Must  we 
be  borne  along  as  was  France  under  the  irresponsible  absolutism  of  Napoleon 
III,  until  we,  like  the  French,  are  paying  taxes  for  a  paper  army  of  1,400,000 
men,  of  whom  1,100,000  do  not  exist?  Manufacturing  munitions  of  war,  and 
packing  them  away  so  scientifically  that,  before  they  could  be  unpacked  and 
put  together  for  use,  the  enemy  were  crowning  their  king  emperor  in  the  French 
capital  ?  Must  we,  like  France,  cross  over  the  deep  and  dark  chasm  of  commu- 
nism before  we  can  pass  from  the  irresponsible  absolutism  of  our  petty  emperors 
of  an  hour,  our  horde  of  governing  pismires,  to  a  system  of  dignity,  responsi- 
bility and  good  faith?  We  have  seen  the  generous  purse  of  the  nation  trans- 
ferred to  credit  mobiliers,  syndicates,  and  gold  brokers.  We  have  seen  the 
sovereignty  of  the  people,  the  power  to  elect  to  office,  transferred  from  the  peo- 
ple to  a  returning  board.  It  is  but  a  short  step  from  a  returning  board, 
authorized  to  elect,  whom  it  may  prefer,  to  an  emperor,  authorized  to  dispense 
with  elections  altogether. 

I  would  not  attempt  to  predict,  whether  through  calm  discussion  or  through 
national  disaster  and  revolution,  the  American  people  will  be  driven  to  adopt 
responsible  government.  But  if,  as  I  believe,  all  responsible  government  is 
subversive  of  liberty  and  of  statesmanship,  and  unfit  for  a  free  people,  then 
will  every  instinct  of  the  American  people  drive  them  ultimately  to  exchange 
the  irresponsible  for  the  responsible  form.  As  it  is,  in  no  country  do  the  people 
feel  such  ah  overwhelming  sense  of  the  littleness  of  the  men  in  charge  of  public 
affairs.  In  no  country  are  the  officials  so  conscious  that  they  are  contemptible. 
In  no  country  is  there  a  national  legislature  and  cabinet  so  rapidly  retrogra- 
ding, so  certainly  sinking  into  the  hands  of  men  ignorant  alike  of  letters,  law, 
history,  finance,  and  even  of  the  morals  and  manners  of  gentlemen. 

Having  sufficiently  noticed  the  evils  of  our  system,  we  now  advance  to  our 
fourth  inquiry — namely,  how  shall  we  set  about  introducing  a  better? 

All,  we  believe,  that  is  needed  to  bring  the  people  to  adopt  responsible  gov- 
ernment is  to  bring  them  to  understand  it.  It  is  more  in  harmony  with  the 
instincts  of  all  honest  men  than  the  system  of  fixed  terms  of  office.  If  the 
peasantry  of  Austria,  France,  Hungary,  Norway,  Sweden  and  numerous  German 


Proposed  Constitutional  Amendments.  33 

States,  and  the  ex-convicts  of  Australia  can  vote  under  it,  it  surely  will  not  be 
said  that  it  requires  too  much  intelligence  for  the  average  American  voter! 

If  responsible  government  simplifies  the  issue  by  reducing  the  question  to 
the  one  issue — as,  for  instance,  shall  we  resume?  shall  we  expand?  shall  we 
have  war?  etc. — it  is  certainly  as  easy  (in  addition  to  being  far  more  effective) 
for  the  people  to  vote  intelligently  on  this  issue  in  advance,  as  it  is  to  have  an 
uninstructed  legislature  and  executive  act  on  it;  and  then  to  be  called  on  after- 
ward to  vote  for  a  set  of  candidates  of  both  parties,  each  of  which  had  some 
members  who  voted  one  way  and  some  who  voted  the  other,  and  each  of  which 
is  ready  to  claim  to  a  voter  who  is  ready  to  indorse  a  given  course  of  action 
that  it  is  the  responsible  author  thereof,  and  to  a  voter  who  opposes  that  course 
that  it  is  in  no  degree  responsible  for  it.  Thus,  in  our  recent  campaigns 
both  parties  have  been  for  "  resumption  "  in  New  York  and  for  "  expansion  " 
in  Indiana  ;  for  "  free  trade  "  in  Illinois,  and  for  "  protection  "  in  Pennsylvania. 
Surely  voters  who  are  competent  to  find  out  the  wiser  course  amidst  so  much 
duplicity  would  have  even  less  difficulty  if  the  issue  were  one,  and  that  a 
straightforward  one,  than  if,  as  now,  the  issues  are  many  and  complicated. 

Two  methods  of  accomplishing  responsible  government  in  the  United  States 
have  been  proposed,  one  of  which  is  supported  by  the  Chicago  Tribune  and  the 
other  by  the  Chicago  Times.  Should  an  equally  full  discussion  elsewhere  pro- 
voke an  equally  harmonious  support  of  the  general  principle,  the  question 
would  be  resolved  into  one  merely  of  details.  The  first  is  after  the  existing 
French  model,  namely,  that  the  President  and  Congress  be  elected  for  a  some- 
what permanent  term,  say  of  seven  years,  and  that  his  cabinet  only  be  respon- 
sible to  Congress  in  the  technical  sense,  he  being  only  removable  by  impeach- 
ment and  conviction  for  crime.  This  might  be  expressed  in  an  amendment  to 
the  constitution,  somewhat  as  follows: 

The  executive  power  of  the  United  States  shall  be  vested  in  a  President,  to 
be  chosen  for  a  term  of  seven  years  by  the  people  (or  by  Congress,  as  might  be 
preferred),  the  members  of  whose  cabinet  shall  form  a  ministry,  responsible  to 
the  House  of  Representatives,  collectively,  for  the  general  conduct  of  the  gov- 
ernment, and  individually  for  the  acts  of  each  member.  The  President  may 
be  removed  only  on  impeachment  for  and  conviction  of  crime.  Each  executive 
act.  to  be  valid,  shall  be  countersigned  by  the  minister  of  the  department,  to 
which  it  relates.  Ministers  shall  be  collectively  and  individually  removed  on 
impeachment  by  the  House  alone,  without  trial,  for  conduct  disapproved  by  the 
House. 

The  legislative  power  shall  be  vested  in  the  President  and  ministry,  and  in  a 
Senate  nnd  House  of  Representatives  to  be  constituted  as  heretofore,  except 
that  the  Representatives  shall  be  elected  for  seven  years,  subject  to  the  earlier 
termination  of  their  office  by  the  causes  herein  provided.  The  President  shall 
select  his  ministers  fron  among  the  members  of  either  the  Senate  or  the  House, 
and  shall,  through  his  ministry,  have  the  initiative  in  legislation  in  common 
with  members  of  either  house,  and  the  right  of  debate  on  all  matters  pending 
therein. 

AVhenever  a  majority  of  the  House  shall  oppose  any  measure  introduced  or 
sustained  by  the  administration,  the  President  shall  either  remove  from  his 
cabinet  the  members  responsible  for  such  measure,  or,  if  he  believes  that  such 
members,  and  not  the  House,  truly  reflect  the  will  of  the  people  thereon,  he 
shall,  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  dissolve  said  House,  thereupon  imme- 
diately ordering  a  new  election  of  Representatives  to  be  held  within  thirty  days 

—a 


34  Responsible  Government. 

after  such  adverse  vote — such  Representatives  to  continue  in  office  for  seven 
years  from  the  period  of  such  election,  or,  until  the  next,  dissolution  of  Congress. 
It  shall'not  be  necessary  for  any  Senator  or  Representative  to  reside  in  the 
State  or  district  which  he  may  be  chosen  to  represent,  or  to  resign  his  seat  if, 
after  being  so  chosen,  he  shall  be  appointed  to  a  cabinet,  office;  but  no  Senator 
holding  a  cabinet -office  shall  draw  any  other  pay  than  that  pretaining  to  his 
position  in  the  cabinet. 

This  renders  the  President  permanent,  except  in  case  of  impeachment  for 
crime ;  but  he  is  shorn  of  his  power,  except  as  he  may  exert  it  through  a  re- 
sponsible minister,  i.  e..  one  removable  at  the  will  of  the  House.  The  other 
method  would  resemble  the  government,  of  Switzerland  in  the  fact  that  the 
executive  powers  would  be  vested  in  a  ministry,  and  not  in  one  person;  but 
would  differ  in  the  fact  that  the  ministry  would  have  the  power  of  dissolving 
the  legislature,  and  would  be  responsible  to  the  legislature,  as  in  England, 
instead  of  being,  as  in  Switzerland,  elected  for  fixed  terms. 

The  entire  ministry  would  retire  together  at  the  will  of  the  House,  or  appeal 
to  the  people.  It  is  advocated  by  the  Chicago  Times,  and  might  be  expressed 
in  a  constitutional  amendment  like  the  following: 

The  executive  power  of  the  United  States  shall  be  vested  in  a  responsible 
Ministry  of  eight  persons,  the  chief  officer  of  whom  shall  be  called  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Ministry.  The  Ministry  shall  be  elected  by  the  Congress  (or  by 
people,  as  may  be  deemed  desirable)  by  a  ballot  which  shall  designate  the 
position  to  be  occupied  by  each  person  voted  for,  simultaneously  with  the  election 
of  the  first  Congress  to  be  chosen  under  this  amendment,  and  shall  hold  for 
seven  years,  unless  sooner  dissolved,  impeached  or  resigned.  The  Ministry 
shall  be  members  of  either  House  ex  officio,  but  may  not  vote.  Upon  a  vote  in 
the  House  of  Representatives,  adverse  to  any  measure  or  course  of  said  Minis- 
try, accompanied  by  an  agreed  list  of  candidates  to  succeed  said  Ministry,  the 
said  Ministry  shall  stand  removed  unless  the  President  of  the  Ministry,  with 
the  consent  of  the  Senate,  shall  dissolve  said  House,  and  appeal  to  the  country 
by  ordering  an  election  of  Representatives  to  be  held  within  thirty  days  after 
such  dissolution. 

The  legislative  power  shall  be  vested  in  a  responsible  ministry,  permanant 
Senate,  and  dissolvable  House  of  Representatives.  The  members  of  the  latter 
shall  be  elected  each  for  the  term  of  seven  years,  subject  to  the  earlier  dissolu- 
tion of  the  House  by  the  Ministry. 

No  Senator  or  Representative  need  reside  in  the  State  or  district  for  which 
he  may  be  chosen,  but  any  Senator  or  Representative,  accepting  a  cabinet  posi- 
tion, shall  receive  only  the  pay  of  the  latter. 

Both  these  provisions  agree  in  opening  up  the  Senate  and  House  to  the 
freest  competitions  between  the  best  minds  in'  all  parts  of  the  country.  The 
theory  that  each  -county  seat  shall  produce  its  local  statesmen,  and  that  no 
Congressional  district  shall  have  any  higher  oi-der  of  calibre  than  it  may  hap- 
pen to  produce,  is  as  preposterous  as  that  each  county  shall  have  no  sugar, 
cloth  or  iron  that  it  does  not  produce.  It  fosters  Local  and  sectional  narrowness, 
meanness  and  hatred,  and  prevents  statesmanship  from  becoming  a  permanent 
profession  to  any  man,  however  worthy. 

Still  another  mode,  which  has  already  been  widely  published,  is  to  have  the 
Chief  Justice  of  our  Supreme  Court  perform  the  strictly  ministerial  functions, 
which  in  England  are  performed  by  the  Queen,  or  in  France  by  the  President, 
in  dissolving  legislatures  and  calling  elections.  These  are  questions  of  detail 
and  belong  to  the  future. 


Editorial   Comment.  35 

The  language  in  which  a  law  is  couched  is  but  its  husk.  The  kernel  must 
be  found  in  its  spirit  and  genius.  If  these  are  laid  upon  deep  and  immutable 
principles  of  human  nature,  and  especially  if  their  wisdom  is  fortified  by  illus- 
trious historic  examples  and  by  long  traditions,  it  is  not  innovation  but  conser- 
vatism to  adopt  them.  If  they  have  hitherto,  wherever  tried,  resolved  chaos 
into  order,  libertinism  into  liberty,  and  passion  into  law;  if  they  have  substi- 
tuted statesmanship  for  standing  armies,  and  jurisprudence  for  demagoguery, 
then  they  ure  planned  well.  That  these  would  be  the  tendencies  of  responsible 
government  in  America  we  expect  to  see  Americans  generally,  at  an  early  day, 
come  to  admit.  When  they  do,  its  adoption  will  quickly  follow,  and  our  repub- 
lic will  have  entered  on  its  second  epoch.  Its  first,  revolution  relieved  it  from 
the  mastery  of  a  foreign  State;  its  second  revolution  would  lift-  it  into  the  com- 
mand of  its  own  tendencies  to  anarchy  and  misrule,  and  make  it  master  over 
itself.  ' 

Among  many    utterances  of  the  press,  in  response   to  the  above  article, 
we  select  the  following  from  the  Boston  Advertiser: 
RESPONSIBLE  GOVERNMENT. 

The  International  Review  has  an  article  by  Professor  V.  B.  Denslow  upon 
f  e  above  subject,  which  is  one  among  many  significant  signs  of  the  times. 
All  great  changes  in  the  world's  history  have  been  merely  the  concrete  result 
of  long  previous  preparation.  The  state  of  the  Roman  empire  seems  to  have 
been  expressly  adapted  to  the  coming  of  Christ.  Luther,  it  has  been  often  re- 
marked, was  merely  the  one  man  to  give  voice  to  the  feeling  of  his  time.  Even 
the  application  of  steam  and  electricity  came  upon  a  world  demanding  and  all 
ready  to  receive  it.  And  the  people  of  the  United  States,  wearjed  with  the 
unmeaning  jingle  of  parties,  disgusted  with  the  inefficiency  of  government  and 
the  want  of  correspondence  between  the  interests  of  the  country,  and  of  the  men 
who  assume  to  control  it.  appear  to  be  pretty  nearly  ripe  for  the  introduction 
of  a  new  principle.  Responsible  government  can  be  easily  shown  to  be  an 
indispensable  necessity  for  the  ultimate  success  of  free  institutions,  and  has 
been  adopted  in  other  countries  in  proportion  as  the  people  have  been  admitted 
to  a  voice  in  their  public  affairs.  Yet  there  is  hardly  a  trace  of  it  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  as  a  whole  or  the  individual  parts.  If  the  readers 
of  these  columns  need  any  further  illustration  of  the  absurdities  of  our  methods 
of  conducting  public  affairs,  they  are  referred  to  Professor  Denslow's  article. 
But  the  trouble  with  the  increasing  number  of  those  whose  ideas  of  remedy 
are  taking  the  same  direction  is,  that  they  ask  too  much.  If  they  can  not  have 
Abana  and  Pharpar  they  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  waters  of  Israel. 
Thus  Professor  Denslow  holds  a  dissolvable  legislature,  actual  membership  of 
the  House  on  the  part,  of  cabinet  officers,  the  removal  of  all  restrictions  upon 
residence,  and  united  ministerial  responsibility,  to  be  essential,  while  others 
connect  with  these  things  longer  terms  of  the  executive  or  legislature,  or  both, 
the  cabalistic  period  of  seven  years  being  supposed  to  have  great  virtue.  But 
any  such  changes  require  constitutional  amendments,  which  for  three  princi- 
pal reasons  are  simply  impossible.  First,  they  involve  an  entire  reconstruction 
of  the  framework  of  our  government,  and  of  the  difficulties  of  this,  at  the  pres- 
ent day,  the  reader  of  Elliot's  debates  can  form  a  faint  idea.  Second,  such 
amendments  must  pass,  not  only  Congress,  but  twenty-seven  legislatures,  and, 
as  in  increasing  the  responsibility,  they  must  perforce  increase  the  indepen- 
dent power  of  the  executive  and  diminish  that  of  the  legislatures  and  of  the  poli- 
ticians composing  or  ruling  them,  the  absolute  and  uncompromising  hostility 
of  the  latter  to  the  very  principle  is  the  one  element  that  can  be  counted  on 
with  certainty.  Third.it  is  impossible  -a  priori  to  devise  a  new  system  which 
shall  cover  all  requirements  and  be  so  evidently  desirable  as  to  excite  the 


36  Responsible  Government. 

requisite  popular  enthusiasm.  Before  we  can  overcome  these  obstacles  the 
chances  are  much  greater  that  we  shall  go -.to  pieces  in  anarchy  and  reunite 
under  a  military  despotism.  We  might  as  well  try  to  establish  a  House  of 
Lords  at  once. 

Taking  things  as  they  are,  then  what  is  there  that  is  practicable?  Let  us 
consider  the  situation  of  the  incoming  administration.  It  is  such  that  the  most 
ardent  Republican  must  have  a  half  wish  that  the  burden  had  been  thrown 
upon  Mr.  Tilden.  There  will  be  a  Democratic  majority  in  the  House.  Small, 
perhaps,  in  number,  but  smarting  under  disappointment  and  defeat.  The 
majority  of  the  Senate  is  nominally  Republican,  but,  apart  from  the  chances  of 
an  early  change,  it  is  in  the  hands  of  men  wedded  to  all  the  abuses  of  the  past, 
Unless  the  President  plays  into  their  hands,  their  hostility  will  be  just  as 
great,  and  none  the  less  deadly  for  being  secret.  If  he  fails  to  appoint,  a  cab- 
inet of  honest  and  independent  men,  he  will  lose  the  country  and  seal  the  fate 
of  the  Republican  party.  If  he  does  appoint  such,  the  knife  will  be  put  to  his 
and  their  throats  by  those  who  should  be  his  party  friends.  Not  giving  office 
to  Democrats  will  excite  hostility  in  the  House,  but  little  greater  than  failure 
to  satisfy  party  claims  will  excite  in  the  Senate.  Investigating  committees  of 
the  House  will  discover  what  they  desire,  and  nothing  more,  and  half-hearted 
support  in  the  Senate  with  lead  the  country  to  believe  that  their  reports  are 
true.  Persecution  will  force  its  way  into  every  corner  of  the  White  House  and 
the  departments.  What  is  the  natural  refuge  of  honest  officials  in  such  straits  ? 
Appeal  to  the  country.  But  from  this  they  are  entirely  cut  off.  The  public 
never  can  or  will  know  the  story  of  their  wrongs.  But  suppose  President 
Hayes  to  say  to  Congress:  "Neither  I.nor  my  officers  shrink  from  any  exami- 
nation, provided  it  is  public,  and  where  both  sides  can  be  heard.  Instead  of 
calling  the  latter  at  your  pleasure  into  committee  rooms,  where  their  evidence 
can  be  garbled,  admit  them  to  the  sessions  of  the  House.  Let  question  and 
answer  be  individual  and  public,  and  let  the  country  judge."  If  we  can  not 
have  a  responsible  ministry  start  forth  fully  armed,  like  Minerva  from  the 
head  of  Jove,  we  can  at  least  take  the  first  step,  and  leave  the  rest  to  time. 
The  cabinet  need  not  at  once  take  the  guidance  of  legislation.  They  do  not 
have  it  now,  and  they  need  not  then.  They  would  stand  against  an  adverse 
majority,  but  they  will  occupy  that  position  at  any  rate.  The  opposition  would 
be  public  and  not  secret,  and  they  would  have  protection  from  their  friends, 
which  they  will  need  a  grent  deal  more  than  from  their  enemies.  Assuming 
them  to  act  at  first  merely  as  witnesses,  we  might  get  no  great  gain  in  legisla- 
tion, but  we  should  get  what  is  of  more  immediate  importance, — a  greater 
degree  of  purity.  If  a  cabinet  officer  were  pressed  by  either  side  to  do  what 
was  against  his  conscience,  a  visit  to  one  or  two  members  on  the  other  would 
elicit  questions  which  would  soon  free  him  from  such  importunity;  while,  if 
he  were  tempted  to  yield  to  such  pressure,  the  least  suspicion  on  the  other 
side  would  at  once  bring  the  whole  matter  to  light,  For  the  very  reason,  how- 
ever, that  such  a  step  would  arm  an  independent  President  against  both  sides, 
both  sides  will  agree  in  refusing  to  take  it.  It  must  be  forced  upon  Congress. 
But  a  suggestion  by  the  President  in  his  message,  with  a  few  hints  dropped  to 
the  newspaper  reporters,  would  rouse  public  opinion  to  a  point  which  our  legis- 
lators would  hardly  venture  to  resist. 

We  will  add  only  one  reflection:  The  Republican  party  has  one  more  chance. 
If  things  go  on  in  the  old  way,  and  they  must  under  the  present  system,  the 
President  will  go  out  with  damaged  reputation,  and  the  party  will  disappear 
forever.  Four  years  will  have  been  lost,  and  it  will  take  at  least  four  years 
more  to  convince  the  country  that  the  Democrats  in  power  will  only  make 
matters  worse.  The  country  will  be  very  lenient  in  the  matter  of  achievement, 
if  it  can  be  fully  satisfied  as  to  the  purity  of  administration.  If  the  sincere 
Republicans  and  the  President  have  any  regard  for  their  future  they  will  see  to 
it  that  that  purity-is  attained  and  demonstrated  in  the  only  way  in  which  it 
can  be, — by  public  executive  responsibility. 


TAXATION  AND  REPRESENTATION; 

OR, 

THE  RIGHTS  OF  CAPITAL  IN  GOVERNMENT. 


THE  United  States  of  America  became  a  nation  in  vindication  of  the  princi- 
ple that  taxation  and  representation  are  inseparable,  t. «.,  that  only  those  who 
pay  the  taxes  should  have  the  power  to  impose  them.  This  is  an  English  prin- 
ciple, and  grew  up  out  of  the  theory  that  the  Crown  was  self-supporting  out 
of  its  own  private  lands  and  revenues,  as  originally  it  was,  and  only  needed 
the  aid  of  taxes,  or  as  they  were  called  in  England'  extraordinary  revenues, 
to  help  it  out  in  emergencies.  Great  Britain  fought  to  subdue  the  thirteen 
colonies,  in  the  groping  after  another  principle,  not  then  very  clearly  under- 
stood, viz :  that  expenditure  and  taxation  are  inseparable.  The  mother  country 
had  expended  several  millions  during  the  wars  known  here  as  the  Queen 
Anne's  and  French  and  Indian  Wars,  in  sending  over  regulars  under  Braddock 
and  Montgomery  to  defend  the  colonies  from, the  French  and  Indians,  and  in 
part  with  an  ultimate  view  to  capture  the  Canadas  from  the  French.  These 
expenses  caused  an  illogical  void  in  the  British  budget.  Why  should  the  peo- 
ple of  London  or  Yorkshire,  Scotland  or  Ireland,  India  or  Australia  be  taxed 
to  defend  the  America!  colonies  from  their  French  and  Indian  neighbors,  or  to 
conquer  the  Canadas  for  the  future  security  of  the  thirteen  colonies?  Yet  the 
tax  to  reimburse  the  treasury  had  to  be  drawn  from  somebody  somewhere. 
What  policy  more  logical  or  just  than  to  draw  it  from  the  people  who  had  asked 
for  and  been  specially  benefited  by  the  expenditure?  But  "no"  said  Massa- 
chusetts, New  York  and  Virginia,  "we  will  not  pay  the  tax,  though  we  concede 
that  the  expenditure  benefited  us  especially,  because  government  ceases  to  be 
constitutional  and  free  when  taxes  can  be  imposed  by  any  others  than  those 
who  pay  them."  Out  of  this  principle  our  nation  was  born. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  lecture  to  show,  first  that  the  American  people 
failed  to  put  into  absolute  practice  the  theory  they  then  fought  to  inculcate 
into  the  British  mind;  thus  illustrating  Shakspeare's  witticism: 

"'Twcre  easier  to  teach  twenty  what  'twere  well  to  do, 
Than  be  one  of  the  twenty  to  follow  our  own  teaching." 

And  secondly,  that  we  would  be  greatly  benefited  as  a  nation  by  giving  to  this 
principle  its  full  scope  and  effect. 


38  Responsible   Government. 

England  has  maintained  in  her  other  colonies  the  theory  for  which  she  then 
fought,  that  expenditure  and  taxation  are  inseparable,  that  the  expenses  of 
India  shall  be  paid  by  taxation  upon  the  Hindoos,  those  of  Canada  by  Cana- 
dian taxes,  and  those  of  Australia  by  taxes  on  the  Australians. 

The  American  States,  on  the  ratification  of  their  independence,  attained  to 
full  power  to  apply  the  principle,  that  taxation  and  representation  are  insep- 
arable, and  supposed  they  were  applying  it  when  they  provided  in  the  various 
State  consti  utions  that  all  adult  male  citizens  should  vote,  that  there  should 
be  a  representative  to  a  certain  quota  of  population,  and  that  all  property 
should  be  taxed  according  to  its  value.  It  was  scai-cely  observed,  so  equal  was 
then  the  diffusion  of  property,  that  many  would  vote  who  paid  no  taxes,  and 
that  many  who  paid  taxes  would  have  no  vote,  and  that,  in  short,  they  had 
divorced  representation  from  taxation,  and  had  married  it  to  population,  which 
was  quite  a  different  spouse.  Perhaps  our  forefathers,  full  of  old  testament 
wisdom,  foresaw  'that  a  Jacob  who  would  labor  seven  years  for  a  Rachel, 
if  then  rewarded  with  the  Leah  whom  he  didn't  want,  would  labor  another  seven 
years  for  the  Rachel  he  did  want,  and  thus  make  a  good  provision  for  two — 
in  other  words,  that  the  people  might  ultimately  be  represented  in  proportion 
to  taxation  in  one  house,  and  in  proportion  to  population  in  another. 

No  statistics  are  taken  in  the  United  States  nor  in  any  State  of  the  number 
of  tax-payers.  As  the  State,  county  and  town  taxes  rest  on  property,  none 
are  payers  of  such  taxes  by  virtue  of  being  either  producers  or  consumers. 
They  consist  of  a  well  defined  class  whose  property,  real  and  personal,  is  as- 
sessed, and  according  to  which  assessment  a  bill  is  made  out,  for  which  if  not 
paid  the  property  is  sold.  The  burden  of  the  tax  can  not  be  transferred.  Its 
whole  "incidence"  or  loss  falls  on  him  who  pays  it.  Federal  taxes  are 
another  matter.  The  census  enumerates  carefully  every  other  beast  of  burden. 
Illinois,  however,  in  1872,  cast  426,882  votes;  and  in  1870,  according  to  the 
census  contained  395,937  persons  whose  occupations  were  enumerated,  exclu- 
sively of  those  engaged  in  manufactures  and  transportation.  Assuming  that 
the  voters  and  the  persons  whose  occupations  are  enumerated  in  the  census, 
including  those  engaged  in  manufactures  and  transportation,  are  about  425,000 
persons,  and  that  they  are  pretty  nearly  the  same  persons,  notwithstanding  a 
small  proportion  of  the  persons  included  in  the  enumerated  occupations  are 
females,  we  have  a  basis  from  which  to  estimate  the  number  of  tax-paying 
voters.  The  153,646  farmers  are  all  tax-payers  and  voters,  and  alone  form 
two-fifths  of  the  voters  of  the  State.  The  125,331  laborers,  farm  laborers  and 
servants  are  so  nearly  all  non-tax-payers,  that  we  may  assume  there  are  not 
more  than  5000  tax-payers  among  them  all.  Of  carpenters,  blacksmiths,  mer- 
chants, shoemakers,  teachers,  clerks,  wheelwrights,  physfcians,  masons,  millers, 
tailors,  lawyers,  students  and  inn-keepers,  there  are  56,868,  of  whom  doubtless 
three-fourths,  or  say  40,000,  pay  taxes  on  real  and  personal  property ;  these 
leave  40,000  unaccounted  for,  whom  we  refer  to  railroading,  transportation, 
navigation,  mining,  manufacturing,  politics,  preaching,  office-holding,  crime 
and  other  parasitic  industries,  among  whom  we  will  assume  that  two-thirds 
are  tax-payers.  On  this  basis  our  payers  of  State  taxes  are, 


Ratio  of  Tax-payers  to  Voters.  39 

Farmers,                                                                   ...  153,646 

Tax-paying  farm  laborers,  other  laborers  and  servants,         -  -          5,000 

Tax-payers  of  the  enumerated  occupations,          -            -  40,000 

Tax-payers  of  the  non-enumerated  occupations,         -  -         27,000 


Total,  ......  225,646 

Or  a  little  more  than  half  the  voters.  The  tax-payers  of  any  State  in  the 
Union,  if  united,  could  probably  carry  it  against  the  non-tax-payers  by  a  small 
majority,  though  a  census  of  the  tax-payers  or  a  new  system  of  returns  by  the 
town  assessors  to  the  comptroller  of  the  State,  would  be  necessary  to  give  to 
such  estimates  any  trustworthy  character. 

But  hitherto  in  this  country,  no  issue  has  been  joined  on  any  large  scale 
between  the  tax-payers  and  non-tax-payers.  Until  such  an  issue  is  joined, 
every  tax-payer  votes  precisely  as  if  he  were  a  non-tax-payer.  Occasionally  in 
some  local  school  district  or  town  election  the  issue  will  be  drawn. 

Thus  in  a  school  district  with  which  I  was  acquainted  in  an  eastern  State, 
there  was  a  sudden  influx  of  millionaires  without  children,  whose  personal 
property  tax  became  an  easy  prey  to  the  resident  voter.  The  sudden  thirst  for 
learning  displayed  by  the  parents  of  that  district  could  only  be  compared  to  the 
enthusiasm  with  which  poor  house  contractors  pursue  works  of  charity  for 
their  own  sake,  or  to  the  interest  an  Indian  agent  feels  in  clothing  the  naked. 
Extras  and  special  courses  were  piled  up  until  the  mere  tuition  at  that  school 
amounted  to  $600  per  pupil  per  year,  or  nearly  as  much  as  both  tuition  and 
board  cost  at  Yale  College.  The  lines  were  drawn  at  a  school  election,  the 
question  being  whether  the  millionaires  had  any  constitutional  right  to  a  sur- 
plus for  the  maintenance  of  their  families,  or  whether  the  parents  of  the  district 
had  the  power  to  vote  all  the  incomes  of  the  residents  of  that  district  to  the 
support  of  the  school  in  question,  leaving  to  those  who  eai-ned  the  incomes  only 
a  contingent  remainder.  The  effect  of  the  election  was,  to  decide  that  if  the 
millionaires  would  thenceforth  devote  about  $250  per  pupil  per  annum  to  the 
education  of  the  suffering  children  of  that  district,  they  might  retain  the  bal- 
ance of  their  property.  Your  lecturer  had  been  partially  educated,  some  fif^en 
years  earlier,  in  the  same  district,  when  the  aggregate  expense  to  the  tax-payers 
for  maintaining  the  same  school  was  only  about  $3  per  pupil  per  annum;  and 
to  this  day  he  attributes  most  of  his  deficiencies  in  logic,  embroidery,  dancing, 
and  in  the  use  of  the  piano,  the  harp  and  the  timbrel,  and  in  German,  Italian, 
and  pure  speculative  philosophy,  to  the  fact  that  he  was  born  fifteen  years  too 
soon.  He  should  have  lived  hereafter,  when  he  could  have  had  the  benefit  of 
$600  per  year  of  other  people's  money  without  rendering  any  equivalent, 
How  many  times  a  day  ought  the  Bible  to  be  read  in  such  a  school  at  the  point 
where  it  says  "  thou  shall  not  steal,"  to  efface  the  influence  of  the  fact  that 
the  very  Bible  they  were  reading  and  the  building  in  which  they  were  reading 
it  were  stolen? 

In  one  of  the  counties  of  Illinois,  in  1865/36  voters  had  advanced  §100  each 
to  save  the  town  from  the  draft.  Shortly  after  they  procured  an  act  to  be 
passed  authorizing  towns  in  that  county  which  had  not  filled  their  quotas,  to 


40  Responsible   Government. 

levy  a  tax  therefor.  On  the  day  after  the  act  was  passed,  and  before  i-eading 
its  exact  terms,  these  36  voters,  there  being  95  voters  in  all  in  the  town,  got 
together,  called  themselves  a  town  meeting,  voted  themselves  $3600  in  bonds, 
voted  also  a  bonus  of  several  hundred  dollars  to  the  town  officers  who  issued 
the  bonds,  and  the  bonds  were  issued  and  the  tax  actually  levied  on  the  whole 
taxable  property  of  the  town, — when  the  courts  intervened,  and  held  the  election 
void,  because  the  notice  of  election  called  for  by  the  act  had  not  been  given. 
It  is  a  humane  principle  of  our  election  law,  that  no  tax-paying  constituency 
going  down  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho  shall  be  set  upon  and  stripped  and  beaten, 
and  left  for  dead  upon  the  highway,  without  due  notice  of  the  intention  of 
the  voting  constituency  being  given, — for  all  robbery,  to  be  legal,  must  be  con- 
summated in  accordance  with  the  sacred  forms  of  the  constitution !  Our  entire 
scheme  of  voting  aids  to  schools,  railways,  parks,  canals,  etc.,  is  based  on  the 
theory  that  the  right  to  tax  is  in  the  voters,  while  the  obligation  to  pay  is  in 
the  tax-payers,  and  that  the  tax-payer,  as  such,  has  no  constitutional  rights 
which  the  voter  is  bound  to  respect. 

William  M.  Tweed,  by  sending  a  barrel  of  flour  and  a  ton  of  coal  occasion- 
ally to  the  poor  voters  of  his  ward  or  to  some  small  fraction  of  them,  controlled 
the  non-tax-payers  of  the  ward,  and  through  them  the  tax-payers  whose  money 
paid  for  the  coal  and  flour,  and  through  the  ward  he  controlled  the  city,  and 
ultimately  the  disbursement  of  from  $25,000,000  to  $40,000,000  a  year,  or  more 
than  thirty  of  our  State  governments  combined  were  disbursing  in  1860.  In 
the  disbursements  of  these  moneys  for  marble,  upholstery,  and  services  on  its 
public  buildings,  rings  were  formed  which  levied  toll  on  the  bills  paid  by 
the  city,  in  sums  which  soon  made  the  members  of  these  rings  the  recognized 
princes  and  plunderers  of  the  metropolis.  Nearly  every  city  in  the  country 
does  the  same  thing  in  a  less  degree. 

Impracticable  theorists  who  don't  know  how  to  make  money  under  the 
glorious  institutions  of  a  free  country,  slanderously  call  -this  stealing.  It  is 
only  the  legitimate  result  of  the  sublime  truth  to  the  dignity  of  which  the  whole 
American  people  have  arisen,  that  A  and  B  who  pay  no  taxes  can  vote  how 
mu^ch  tax  C  shall  pay,  and  what  shall  be  done  with  it  when  paid;  and  that  be- 
cause A  and  B  ai-e  represented,  therefore  C  is  represented. 

Taxation  and  representation  to  be  inseparable  must  be  proportionate  and  to 
be  proportionate,  the  entire  expenses  of  our  State  government,  say  $4,000,000 
ought  under  our  present  system  of  voting  to  be  paidby  a  poll  tax  of  $10  on 
every  voter.  Every  voter  assumes  in  voting  to  dispose  of  about  $10  of  some- 
body's money.  If  he  has  paid  the  $10  of  State  taxes,  he,  in  voting,  asserts  the 
lawful  right  of  a  proprietor  to  dispose  of  his  own.  If  he  has  not  paid  the  $10, 
he,  as  a  political  free-booter,  exercises  in  voting  a  power  to  dispose  of  another 
man's  money,  which  is  a  power  without  a  right. 

Lord  Chatham,  in  1775,  in  the  speech  attributed  to  him,  but  the  standard 
report  of  which  is  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson,  sneered  at  the  notion 
that  his  Majesty's  commons  of  Emgland  could  tender  to  his  Majesty  aid  and 
supplies  from  the  money  of  his  Majesty's  commons  of  America.  But  the  non- 
tax-payers of  America  have  never  had  any  scruples  in  voting  aids  and  sup- 


The  Soaring  Eagle.  41 

plies  to  be  paid  by  the  tax-payers  gf  America.  The  separation  of  the  class 
that  votes  the  tax  from  the  class  that  pays  it,  by  3000  miles  of  ocean,  is  not  the 
fact  which  constitutes  the  tyranny.  A  distant  oppressor  would  be  moderate 
in  his  demands  in  the  degree  that  he  was  insecure  in  his  tenure.  He  could  at 
best,  only  swoop  down  upon  us  like  the  eagle,  bury  his  talons  occasionally  in 
the  firstlings  of  our  flock  and  bear  them  away.  But  if  coiled  in  ten  thousand 
anaconda  folds  around  all  our  limbs,  the  despotism  becomes  intense  in  the 
degree  that  the  despot  is  identified  with  his  victim,  until,  in  the  final  fierce 
embrace,  rescue  becomes  impossible  and  both  must  perish  together,  or  the 
serpent  only  will  survive. 

But,  says  the  average  American  statesman,  to-wit :  the  voter,  (for  American 
statesmen,  like  British  poets,  are  born,  not  made,)  "who  is  harmed  by  this  theo- 
retical injustice?  Do  the  spots  upon  the  sun,  which  only  an  astronomer  sees, 
diminish  its  usefulness?  And  can  not  the  eternal  glory  of  our  National  escut- 
cheon afford  a  few  spots,  by  way  of  completing  its  resemblance  to  the  exhaustless 
source  of  light  and  life  which  warms  the  universe?  Don't  American  corn  have 
longer  eai-s  with  more  rows  on  them,  and  don't  American  hens  lay  more  eggs 
a  day,  and  aren't  a  larger  proportion  of  the  eggs  laid  with  a  double  yolk,  and 
don't  the  American  eagle  soar  higher,  and  the  American  hog  root  deeper,  and 
the  American  rooster  crow  earlier  and  louder,  and  according  to  more  correct 
principles  of  crowing,  and  don't  the  American  soil  breed  more  brains  and  more 
brawn,  and  more  muscle  and  more  nerve  to  the  half  acre,  than  is  to  be  found 
under  the  enervating  flag  of  any  of  the  effete  and  crumbling  monarchies  and 
corrupting  dynasties  of  the  Old  World?  Can't,  we  allow  more  public  money  to 
be  stolen  than  any  of  the  picayunish  and  impoverished  treasuries  of  Europe 
could  afford,  and  have  more  left  to  divide  up  among  ourselves  after  it  is  stolen? 
Can't  we  employ  five  times  as  many  public  servants  to  render  one-fifth  as  much 
public  service  at  a  given  cost  as  any  other  nation  on  earth?  And  haven't  we 
shed  more  of  the  blood  and  treasure  of  our  own  people  in  twenty  years,  than 
it  has  cost  any  other  government  on  earth  to  maintain  itself  for  a  century? 
And  can  there  be  any  doubt  that  a  system  of  government  which  has  cost  the 
lives  of  millions  to  maintain,  must  be  valuable  in  the  degree  that  it  is  costly? 
Haven't  we  crushed  the  biggest  rebellion  the  world  ever  saw,  and  isn't  it  as  a 
general  proposition  true,  that  any  government  is  valuable  in  proportion  to  the 
frequency  and  the  bigness  of  the  rebellions  it  is  crushing,  and  the  weight  with 
which  it  can  sit  down  on  the  conquered  rebellions  when  they  are  crushed  ?  And 
isn't  it  a  proud  satisfaction  to  know  that  12,000,000  of  people  out  of  40,000,000 
who  have  been  trying  to  escape  from  the  blessings  and  get  out  from  under  the 
freedom  of  our  glorious  liberty  can't  do  it,  but  have  been  pinned  into  the  enjoy- 
ment of  our  common  brotherhood  and  national  unity  by  the  national  bayonet? 

Leaving  both  the  eagle  and  the  buzzard  to  soar,  we  come  down  to  a  plain 
matter  of  fact  inquiry,  what  have  been  the  effects  of  awarding  representation 
in  America  to  mere  numbers,  leaving  capital  unrepresented? 

In  England,  where  capital,  or  essentially  land,  and  the  church,  are  exclu- 
sively represented  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  influence  the  election  of  five-sixths 
of  the  House  of  Commons,  we  are  struck  by  the  fact  that  no  tax  rests  on  land 


42  Responsible   Government. 

or  accumulated  capital  of  any  kind,  while  throughout  all  the  American  State 
governments  the  entire  burden  of  State  and  local  taxes  rest  on  land  and 
accumulated  values,  and  no  tax  whatever  on  earnings,  incomes,  processes  or 
other  incidents  of  industry.  In  England,  equality  and  uniformity  of  taxation 
mean  the  equality  of  all  persons  in  proportion  to  their  incomes  and  earnings. 
In  America,  the  same,  words  mean  the  equality  of  all  persons  in  proportion  to 
the  value  of  the  implement  with  which  they  work,  i.  e.  their  accumulated 
capital.  In  England,  not  only  is  capital  protected  from  taxation,  but  from 
spoliation.  The  solvent  borrower  who  refuses  to  repay,  must  pay  the  cost  of 
collecting  the  debt  at  law.  In  all  the  Western  States,  the  lender  who  refuses 
to  wait  until  the  borrower  is  ready  to  pay,  must  pay  the  cost  of  the  effort  to 
collect,  and  hence,  while  in  England  a  debt  against  a  solvent  debtor  who  refuses 
to  pay  is  worth  its  face,  in  Illinois  it  is  worth  according  to  its  amount  from 
two-thirds  to  one-third  of  its  face.  In  England,  crimes  against  the  property 
and  the  person  are  punished  with  a  fidelity  of  which  we  know  little.  In  Illi- 
nois'the  criminals  are  screened  from  justice  with  an  infidelity  of  which  the 
world  knows  much.  Unemployed  capital  flows  to  England  from  all  parts  of 
the  world  for  the  security  afforded  by  its  banks  and  other  credit  institutions 
and  its  courts  of  justice.  But  he  who  has  deposited  his  money  in  a  Chicago 
bank,  feels  that  he  has  cast  his  bread  upon  the  waters,  and  may  look  for  it 
with  the  same  probability  of  finding  it  on  the  banks  of  the  Thames  or  the 
Ganges, 

"  Or  by  the  lazy  Scheldt  or  Wandering  Po." 

Or  wherever  else  the  unfortunate  cashier  can  get  board  without  registering 
his  true  name. 

A  voice:     How  about  the  Bank  of  Glasgow? 

Ans.  The  Bank  of  Glasgow  failed  through  honestly  made  investments, 
though  unwise  ones.  The  directors  were  guilty,  not  of  converting  the  money 
to  their  own  use,  but  of  appropriating  it  irregularly  in  mo'des  designed  to  serve 
the  interests  of  the  stockholders.  For  this  irregularity  they  have  been  con- 
victed, and  are  now  in  prison,  'suffering  the  penalty  of  violated  law.  More- 
over, the  property  of  the  stockholders  has  been  seized  to  reimburse  the  depositors. 
But  in  Chicago,  where  banks  without  number  have  been  scuttled  of  their  de- 
posits by  their  officers,  who  has  been  punished?  And  where  are  the  stock- 
holders who  have  redeemed  the  word  of  promise  to  the  depositors?  There  are 
none  such. 

The  American  States,  in  their  forty  Legislatures,  probably  employ  6000 
persons  in  making  laws,  all  salaried, — as  against  the  600  to  1000  persons, 
none  of  whom  are  salaried,  who  make  laws  for  the  British  Empire;  hence  our 
remarkable  cheapness !  Of  these  6000  legislators,  if  our  Western  States  may 
serve  as  a  sample,  hardly  one  in  fifty  is  a  lawyer;  hence  our  remarkable 
skill!  The  general  object  and  drift  of  all  the  legislation  of  these  forty  legisla- 
tures is  to  protect  the  non-tax-payers,  who  constitute  the  most  manageable  part 
of  their  constituency,  from  all  taxes  on  earnings  or  occupations  or  consump- 
tion, from  all  assertion  of  rights  on  the  part  of  tax-payers,  from  all  collection 
of  debts,  and  ultimately  from  all  punishment  of  crime. 


Effect  on  Rates  of  Interest.  43 

Hence,  in  England,  where  capital  feels  secure,  it  will  render  its  aid  to  in- 
dustry at  3  per  cent,  per  annum,  while  in  Illinois,  if  asked  to  lend  money 
on  the  same  kind  of  bond  tind  mortgage  as  would  suffice  in  England  or  in  New 
York,  i.  e.  one  which  a  resort  to  the  courts  is  necessary  to  foreclose,  it  would 
probably  ask  25  per  cent.,  but  if  given  a  trust  deed  of  most  of  the  borrower's 
present  property  and  a  judgment  note  which  it  can  at  any  moment  convert 
into  a  deed  of  his  future  property,  it  will  lend  at  from  8  to  15  per  cent.  But 
the  golden  treasure  enters  the  State  of  Illinois  under  as  close  a  guard  as  it 
would  Turkey.  First  there  is  the  fierce  and  flashing  Bashi  Bazouk,  with 
drawn  scimeter,  who  determines  the  question  of  the  value  of  the  property.  He 
is  a  Pacha,  not  of  three  tails  but  of  three  per  cent.  Then  there  is  the  heavily 
sabred  and  moustached  apostle  of  the  Koran,  known  as  the  commercial  agency, 
which  is  secretly  consulted  as  to  the  moral  and  religious  character  of  the  bor- 
rower, and  whether  he  has  always  paid  previous  loans  without  contest.  Then 
there  is  the  band  of  bearded  pards  or  legal  sharps  who  have  been  following 
the  tortuous  windings  of  the  Illinois  Legislature  and  Supreme  Court  for  forty 
years  in  the  joint  efforts  of  these  two  bodies  to  help  and  relieve  the  debtor 
class  by  means  of  clumsy  acknowledgment  laws,  homestead  laws,  provisions 
for  appeal  and  for  stays  that  are  without  cost,  without  security  and  without 
limit  as  to  variety,  tax  laws  which  divest  the  title  of  both  borrower  and  lender 
unless  certain  taxes  are  paid,  redemption  laws,  and  such  an  organization  of 
the  courts  that  during  eleven  months  of  the  year  in  many  parts  of  the  State 
the  collection  of  debt  is  suspended.  To  steer  clear  of  all  these  obstacles  the 
lender  demands  a  deed  of  the  debtor's  present  property  and  a  judgment  note 
against  his  future,  such  as  no  debtor  would  ever  think  of  giving,  save  in  a 
country  whose  legislature  and  courts  had  been  "protecting"  the  debtor  class 
for  half  a  century.  Relatively  therefore,  to  a  country  in  which  capital  is 
represented,  Illinois  pays  from  3  to  8  fold  interest  for  the  privilege  of  so  legis- 
lating as  to  make  capital  insecure.  Give  capital  a  representation  1n  our  legis- 
lature and  it  will  be  as  secure  in  Illinois  as  in  London.  If  as  secure,  it  would 
be  as  abundant  at  3  per  cent.  If  abundant  at  3  per  cent,  the  manufactures 
for  which  we  wait  in  vain,  though  we  have  every  facility  but  capital,  would 
come,  converting  Illinois  into  a  Belgium,  our  Ottawas,  Elgins,  Rockfords, 
Peorias  and  Rock  Islands  into  Birminghams,  Manchesters,  Leeds,  Sheffields, 
where  would  be  spun  the  great  part  of  the  cotton  crop  of  the  South,  and 
where  would  be  smelted  the  ores  bf  Missouri  and  Superior,  and  where  would 
be  assayed  the  precious  ores  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  For  by  a  law  that  is 
irreversable,  the  cotton,  ores  and  metals,  costing  but  about  one-sixth  for  trans- 
portation of  what  the  breadstuff  and  coal  essential  to  their  manufacture  cost 
to  transport,  would  come  here  by  the  same  law  which  caused  Mahomet  to  go 
to  the  mountain,  viz:  that  the  mountain  refused  to  come  to  him.  If  the  rep- 
resentation of  capital  in  Illinois  would  give  it  the  security  which  it  does  in 
England,  as  I  believe  it  would,  it  would  add  in  a  very  brief  period  10,000,000 
of  souls  to  the  population  of  the  State,  and  untold  thousands  of  millions  of 
dollars  to  its  lands.  Large  sections  of  our  State,  and  especially  those  whose 
future  prosperity  depends  on  the  introduction  of  manufactures,  are  at  a  stand 


44  Responsible   Government. 

still  for  want  of  capital.  Agriculture,  seeking  new  lands  to  skin,  drifts  through 
them  for  the  farther  west.  Capital  examines  them,  but  on  inquiry  at  our  banks 
learns  that  money  is  never  loaned  in  this  State  to  promote  production, — the  time 
required  is  too  long,  and  the  means  for  getting  it  back  when  loaned  to  promote 
production  are  too  uncertain.  It  is  only  loaned  on  values  produced,  i.  e.  on 
grain  in  the  bin,  where  it  promotes  speculation  and  exportation.  If  it  goes 
further  and  inquires  why  capital  is  never  loaned  here  to  promote  production,  it 
learns  that  it  is  because,  instead  of  laws  for  the  collection  of  debts,  we  have 
only  a  system  of  laws  for  the  encouragement  of  debtors  in  defrauding  creditors; 
and  if  still  further  it  inquires  why  the  debtor  class  exercise  this  power,  it  ascer- 
tains that  it  is  for  the  same  reason  that  an  Indian  tribe  would  sustain  scalping, 
viz:  that  the  scalpers  are  in  the  majority. 

Along  with  high  rates  of  interest,  as  a  consequence  of  the  government  by 
by  an  undisciplined  mob,  come  low  standards  of  public  virtue  and  of  personal 
dignity  as  exhibited  in  our  literature,  in  our  drama,  in  our  social  manners 
so  far  as  they  are  affected  by  politics,  and  in  the  acquirements  of  our  public 
men. 

In  literature,  the  class  of  European  works' in  which  persons  of  some  dignity 
of  social  position  and  character  figured,  have  given  place  in  our  markets  to  the 
writings  of  a  class  of  American  humorists,  in  which  the  humor,  if  analyzed,  will 
be  found  to  consist  largely  in  such  an  association  of  slang  expressions  with 
refinement  of  sentiment  as  will  flatter  every  American  into  the  feeling  that  if 
his  manners  and  language  are  boorish,  the  inference  is  irresistible  that  his 
heart  is  kind  and  tender,  and  his  sentiments  are  a  delicate  admixture  of  poetry 
and  honor.  Mark  Twain,  Artemus  Ward,  Will  Carleton,  John  Hay,  Josh  Bil- 
lings, Orpheus  C.  Kerr,  P.  V.  Nasby,  Bret  Harte,  the  Danbury  News  man,  all 
agree  in  importing  into  literature  for  the  delectation  of  American  society  such 
a  hash  of  slang  and  refinement  as  will  convey  the  imprefesion  that  every  man 
ignorant  of  grammar  is  the  soul  of  chivalry.  On  the  stage,  the  Danites,  "  Josh 
Whitcomb,"  "My  Awful  Dad,"  "The  Two  Orphans,"  "Our  American  Cousin," 
and  nearly  every  play  produced  within  twenty-five  years  past,  has  had  one  or 
the  other  of  two  aims, — either  to  prove  that  people  of  aristocratic  birth  and 
education  are  on  the  verge  of  idiocy,  like  Lord  Dundreary,  or  are  destitute  of 
morals  and  of  honor,  while  ruffianism  of  manners  is  the  external  garb  of  true 
fidelity  and  refinement  of  character, — in  short,  if  you  would  meet  the  true 
gentleman,  scratch  the  first  ruffian  or  vagabond  you  come  to,  and  vice  verse. 
English  society  has  gone  far  in  toadying  to  its  counts,  earls  and  kings.  But  if 
Hs  civilization  suffers  more  from  cringing  upwards  than  ours  does  from  fawn- 
ing downwards,  if  its  manners  are  worse  affected  by  imitating  the  dignity  of 
the  great  than  ours  from  aping  the  vulgarity  of  the  mean,  then  indeed  science 
is  wrong,  and  it  is  the  sun  which  absorbs  the  light  which  opaque  bodies  send 
to  it. 

Looking  at  our  social  manners  as  affected  by  politics,  we  find  the  average 
American  politician  (for  the  manners  which  originated  in  the  west  are  rapidly 
spreading  over  the  east  as  well,)  is  treated  by  his  constituents  not  in  any  sense 
as  a  gentleman,  but  with  a  mixture  of  the  flunkeyism  with  which  a  lackey  over- 


How  the  Sovereigns  Condescend.  45 

rates  a  nobleman  with  whom  he  is  brought  in  contact,  and  the  contemptuous 
familiarity  with  which  a  boor  regards  one  on  whom  he  is  conferring  "the  favor 
of  his  patronage.  Illinois  ignores  the  gentleman,  Mr.  Richard  J.  Oglesby,  to 
patronize  the  favorite  son,  Major  General  Dick  Oglesby;  so  of  Bill  Springer, 
Dick  Yates,  Dick  Townsend,  Josh  Allen,  Jack  Logan,  and  formerly  "Nancy" 
Arnold  and  "Long  John."  "Honest  Old  Abe"  was  at  home  in  this  kind  of 
familiarity;  so  was  the  "Little  Giant."  Ohio  has  »  " Foghorn"  Allen,  a  "Gen- 
tleman George,"  and  formerly  had  a  Sunset  Cox.  The  Wisconsin  Legislature  at 
its  senatorial  election  had  to  inquire  of  its  candidate  whether  his  mother  knew 
him  as  Matthew  Hale  Carpenter,  or  as  Matt.  Chandler  of  Michigan  is  "  Zach," 
and  Williams  of  Indiana  is  "  Blue  Jeans,"  and  the  gentle  Colfax  of  the  same 
State  used  to  be  known  to  his  more  presuming  friends  as  the  smiling  "Sky." 
Even  the  commonwealths,  while  aspiring  to  the  dignity  of  empires,  also  fall 
under  the  indignity  of  this  species  of  slang  nick-names  which  in  the  Old  World 
is  confined  to  thieves  and  the  fish-markets.  Thus  Ohio  is  the  Buckeye  State; 
Indiana  the  Hoosier  State;  Illinoisa'ns  are  "  Suckers ;  "  Wisconsin  in  her  play- 
ful mood  is  "  Badger,"  and  Michigan  is  "  Wolverine." 

Had  Lord  Brougham  represented  Chicago  in  Congress,  he  would  have  been 
Long  Hank.  Earl  Russell  would  have  been  Little  Jack,  Sir  Robert  Peel  would 
have  been  plain  Bob,  like  Ingersoll,  and  the  Hon.  John  Bright  would  have  been 
Jack  Bright,  like  Logan,  or  if  he  changed  his  party,  then  "  Dirty-work"  Bright. 
Even  the  right  Hon.  William  E.  Gladstone  would  be  compelled,  when  his  sov- 
ereign, the  mob,  was  pleased  to  be  gracious  in  his  cups,  to  hear  himself  styled 
"Bill,"  as  Mr.  Seward,  with  all  his  dignity,  used  occasionally  to  be. 

These  external  signs  of  familiar  contempt  express  the  truth  that  Americans 
do  not  look  upon  their  public  men  as  anything  more  than  winners  in  a  game 
of  chance.  Americans  have  great  reverence  for  the  constitutions  and  systems 
of  government  which  result  in  putting  a  certain  class  of  men  in  public  office, 
but  they  know  that  those  men  are  almost  never  skilled,  and  are  seldom  trust- 
worthy. In  every  American  audience  therefore,  in  which  the  wholesale  incom- 
petency  of  public  officers  is  assumed  and  their  corruptions  denounced,  the 
utterance  will  be  applauded.  But  if  you  intimate  that  the  institutions  are  at 
fault,  the  answer  will  be  "no.  the  tree  is  perfect,  only  the  fruit  is  corrupt."  In 
three  points,  as  a  rule,  the  American  citizen's  faith  is  firmly  rooted :  First, 
that  the  constitutions  of  the  United  States  and  of  each  State,  are  divine.  Sec- 
ond, that  the  aggregated  opinions  of  a  sufficiently  large  mass  of  people,  though 
the  opinion  of  each  one  may  be  of  no  value  whatever,  becomes  the  divine  wisdom 
and  never  errs,  and  thirdly,  that  a  divinely  inspired  people,  acting  through  a 
divinely  inspired  constitution,  perpetually  elect  to  office  a  worthless  set  of  ras- 
cals. Here  we  have  a  trinity,  therefore,  in  which  the  father  is  divine  and  the 
son  is  divine,  but  the  joint  energy  and  operation  of  the  two,  as  manifested  in  the 
practical  politician,  instead  of  being  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  the  Devil,  and  yet  after 
this  Devil  has  done  his  perfect  work  in  the  Legislatures  and  in  Congress,  the 
glamour  or  divine  fog  again  descends  upon  it,  and  the  people  regard  every 
actually  finished  product  of  the  industry  of  these  rascals  while  in  office,  as 
undoubtedly  wise — i.  e.  the  foot-prints  of  the  Devil  are  consecrated  ground ! 


46  Responsible  Government. 

The  wholesale  distrust  felt  by  the  people  in  the  quality  of  our  public  offi- 
cers is  far  more  just  and  deserved  than  the  faith  they  repose  in  the  wisdom 
of  our  constitutions,  or  in  the  implicitness  with  which  they  assume  that  the 
aggregate  ignorance  of  a  sufficiently  large  number  of  utterly  uninstructed 
persons,  especially  if  their  opinions  be  taken  by  ballot,  becomes  divinely  illu- 
minated with  wisdom.  Whatever  qualities  render  a  public  man  unlike  the 
mass  of  the  people  in  his  vfews,  retire  him  from  office.  The  people  naturally 
regard  themselves  as  the  fountains  of  political  wisdom,  and  do  not  want  any 
man  at  Springfield  or  at  Washington  whose  views  differ  in  the  least  on  politi- 
cal questions  from  those  which  a  man  will  arrive  at  who  spends  all  but  a  few 
honrs  of  every  year  in  currying  down  his  horse  or  selling  his  goods.  The 
average  American  citizen  really  studies  politics,  generally  by  the  aid  of  very 
incompetent  teachers,  about  ten  hours  in  the  course  of  a  year;  but  the  only 
years  in  which  his  mind  is  flexible,  or  he  is  capable  of  learning  anything,  are 
those  between  seventeen  and  thirty.  Very  few  of  them  ever  admit  a  new 
political  idea  into  their  heads  after  thirty.  The  average  voter's  political 
knowledge  may  be  summed  up  in  the  following  pocket  library: 

Vol.  1.     America  is  the  only  country  that  was  ever  free. 

Vol.  2.  The  Democratic  (or  Republican,  as  the  case  may  be,)  party  is  the 
continued  salvation  of  American  freedom. 

Vol.  3.  General  Jackson  is  the  Alpha  and  Omega  of  modern  statesman- 
ship. 

Vol.  4.  Statesmanship  consists  in  doing  what  a  wayfaring  man,  though  a 
fool,  thinks  is  right,  and  which  so  accords  with  the  common  sense  of  common 
people,  that  the  more  foolish  a  man  is  the  more  clearly  he  sees  it  is  right. 

Vol.  5.  The  only  great  questions  now  in  politics  are,  polygamy  in  Utah 
and  the  grasshoppers  in  Nebraska.  Both  these  should  be  abolished  by  an 
act  of  Congress. 

Vol.  6.  There  is  some  danger  that  the  Catholics  may  get  the  upper  hand, 
and  in  that  event  the  Pope  would  capture  Washington  and  put  a  crucifix  on 
every  school  house.  This  is  to  be  prevented  by  teaching  everybody  how  to 
read,  and  nobody  how  to  work. 

Vol.  7.  I  don't  know  exactly  what  free  trade  is.  but  whatever  it  is  it  is  a 
good  thing. 

This  being  the  substance  of  the  average  American  voter's  political  knowl- 
edge, no  statesman  whose  views  differ  materially  from  this  fundamental  creed 
can  be  sent  either  to  Springfield  or  Washington.  Our  constitutions  and  this 
state  of  public  opinion,  combined,  compel  the  class  of  minds  which  might 
become  statesmen  •  to  settle  down  into  feeders  of  pap,  exhibitors  •  of  buga 
boos,  and  distributors  of  sugar  plums  to  political  babies,  i.  e.,  into  stump  speak- 
ers. A  stumper  differs  from  a  statesman  as  a  king's  jester  differs  from  a  poet 
laureate.  A  statesman  studies  the  means  which  promote  the  prosperity  and 
welfare  of  a  nation,  and  advocates  them,  trusting  only  to  the  dignity  and 
truthfulness  of  his  position;  but  a  statesman  can  have  no  existence  if  his 
recognition  as  such  depends  on  the  ratification  of  his  views  by  an  illiterate 
peasantry.  The  speeches  of  Burke,  Fox  and  Sheridan,  on  the  impeachment  of 


Stumping  and  Statesmanship.  47 

Warren  Hastings,  could  never  have  been  made  on  the  stump.  The  presence 
of  the  cultured  audience  is  as  essential  as  that  of  the  orator.  A  stumper, 
therefore,  studies  merely  tie  tricks  of  words,  the  pretty  stories,  the  coarse 
jests,  the  hackneyed  anecdotes  which  will  flatter  his  audience  into  the  feeling 
that  they  are  a  god,  and  that  the  other  political  party  is  the  devil,  and  so  will 
hold  and  catch  votes.  A  stumper  must  utter  no  unwelcome  truth,  must  teach 
the  people  nothing,  for  all  new  truths  offend  us,  but  must  tell  whatever  cru- 
dity or  lie  the  people  already  believe,  dressing  it  up  in  such  fine  language 
that  the  people  shall  barely  recognize  it  as  being  the  well-dressed  echo  of 
what  they  already  think. 

No  more  skillful  or  effective  utterance  was  ever  made  on  the  stump  than 
Mr.  Emory  A.  Storrs'  story  of  the  last  campaign,  about  an  inflation  of  collat- 
erals. It  garnered  thousands  of  votes  into  the  Republican  coffers.  The  com- 
mittees feared  to  have  Mr.  Storrs  touch  the  financial  question  for  fear  he 
would  say  something,  for  Storrs  is  as  bright  as  the  best,  and  if  he  said  what 
he  thought,  his  horns  might  demolish  the  entire  china  shop.  But  Storrs  knows 
that  sugar  plums  and  soothing  syrup  are,  in  squally  times,  the  best  things 
for  the  infant  mind,  and  that  while  each  individual  of  the  American  public, 
in  the  specialty  to  which  he  had  given  his  life's  energies,  might  be  matured 
and  wise,  yet  that  the  aggregate  judgment  of  that  public,  when  applied  to  a 
subject  like  statesmanship,  to  which  not  one  in  a  hundred  thousand  had  given 
attention,  would  be  infantile.  Thus  compelled,  the  more  able  a  man  to  be  a 
a  statesman,  if  statesmanship  were  required,  the  more  certain  he  is  to  be  a 
stumper,  if  only  pap  and  sugar  plums  for  babies  are  required. 

Here  is  the  Republican  party  arraigned  by  its  adversaries  for  having 
crudely  gone  to  work  to  force  a  paper  dollar,  of  which  there  were  say  $100,- 
000,000  in  circulation,  up  from  a  value  of  70  cents  each  to  a  value  of  100  cents 
each,  in  gold,  knowing  that  the  process  would  inevitably  involve  the  reduc- 
tion of  all  the  other' values  in  the  country,  of  which  this  dollar  was  the  pur- 
chasing agent,  by  the  same  percentage  of  value  that  was  added  to  the  paper 
dollar.  By  whatever  distance  the  scale  containing  the  dollar  rises,  the  scale 
containing  the  commodities  which  buy  the  dollar  must  fall.  There  are 
$35,000,000,000  of  values  to  be  reduced  30  per  cent,,  and  $700,000,000  values 
to  be  raised  30  per  cent,,  $12,000.000,000  of  values  are  to  be  taken  out  of  the 
other  property  in  the,  country,  in  order  that  the  instrument  of  exchange  by 
which  those  values  are  measured  may  be  made  worth  30  per  cent,,  or  $300,- 
000,000  more.  It  was  the  repetition  of  the  graceful  idea  of  keeping  the  goose 
that  we  are  roasting  stationary,  and  having  the  stove  and  the  fire  and  the 
house  revolve  around  it:  or  as  if  in  the  old  times,  when  the  king's  foot  was 
the  standard  of  measurement,  the  nation  had  come  upon  a  king  whose  foot, 
though  very  graceful  and  useful  otherwise,  was  only  seven  inches  long,  and 
had  devoted  five  years  to  gradually  pulling  his  foot  out  to  the  requisite  length. 
Had  a  merchant  discovered  that  his  yard  stick  was  too  short,  he  would  have 
retired  it  and  substituted  another  of  full  length,  or  if  his  pound  weight  was 
too  small,  he  would  throw  it  under  the  counter  and  substitute  another  of  full 
size.  So  Russia  and  Austria,  finding,  twenty  years  after  their  wars  with 


48  Responsible  Government. 

Napoleon  had  ended,  that  the  paper  currency  of  the  one  was  worth  but  24  per 
cent,  of  its  face  and  that  of  the  other  but  60  per  cent.,  both  provided  for  retir- 
ing the  old  currency  and  substituting  a  new  one  worth  par  from  the  date  of  its 
issue,  and  for  the  payment  of  all  debts  in  the  old  currency  which  were  incur- 
red in  the  old,  or  if  payment  were  made  in  the  new  currency,  then  reducing 
the  nominal  amount  so  as  to  maintain  the  equation  of  actual  values,  and  not 
make  the  debtor  pay  the  creditor  from  40  to  70  per  cent,  more  value  than  he 
had  agreed  to  pay.  In  this  way  these  two  effete  monarchies  resumed  specie 
payments  in  a  month,  without  deranging  the  values  of  all  the  property  in 
both  empires,  or  so  much  as  disturbing  the  price  of  a  pea  nut  to  the  value  of  a 
hair,  without  making  the  fire  and  the  residence  revolve  around  the  goose  that 
was  being  cooked,  and  without  placing  the  foot  of  the  sovereign  people  in  the 
vise  and  rack,  and  pulling  it  out  amidst  the  groans  and  yells  of  the  suffering 
sovereign,  from  a  length  of  seven  inches  to  a  length  of  twelve  inches.  But 
the  glorious  Republican  and  Democratic  parties  raise  too  much  brains  to  the 
acre  to  care  for  any  financial  examples  afforded  by  the  effete  despotisms  of  the 
old  world,  and  so  they  combine  to  resume  by  a  plan  which  will  set  all  the 
values  in  the  country  toppling  and  falling  like  rows  of  bricks  upon  each  other, 
so  that  production  will  be  as  nearly  paralyzed  as  human  ingenuity  can  render 
possible,  by  the  fact  that  for  years  every  product  will  continue  to  sell  for  less 
than  the  cost  of  producing  it;  for  the  Republican  and  Democratic  parties  com- 
bined had  resolved,  as  a  political  truism,  that  the  dollar,  with  which  all  other 
things  were  purchased,  might  be  given  a  purchasing  power  relatively  to  all 
other  things  of  30  per  cent,  more,  without  any  other  thing  losing  any  part  of 
its  power  to  purchase  dollars.  Hence,  production  was  palsied,  capital  fled 
into  the  bank  vaults  with  terror,  labor  roamed  on  the  highways,  fools  every- 
where talked  finance,  and  the  busiest  bees  in  the  bucket  were  the  registers  in 
bankruptcy  and  the  hangmen.  While  the  wind  that  resulted  in  the  whirlwind 
was  being  sown,  the  Democratic  party  had  its  cheeks  as- full  of  wind  as  the 
Republican.  But  when  the  whirlwind  came,  then  the  Democratic  party,  like 
Adam  of  old,  pointed  to  the  woman  and  said:  "The  Republican  party  she  did 
take,  and  gave  to  me,  and  I  did  eat  also."  In  this  dilemma,  what  the  cam- 
paign committees  want  is  soothing  syrup.  The  Great  American  Baby  has  been 
having  his  foot  stretched  by  the  medical  bears,  and  Mr.  Storrs  must  explain 
to  the  dear,  great,  vast  body  politic,  with  the  dear,  small,  little,  tiny  brain 
inside  of  it,  that  it  mustn't  kick  the  doctor  up  to  where  corn  is  worth  $2  a 
bushel,  nor  upset  the  nurse,  but  must  just  open  its  little  mouth  and  shut  its 
little  eyes,  and  receive  from  the  Hon.  and  eloquent  Emory  A.  Storrs  something 
that  will  make  it  witty,  and  wealthy,  and  wise. 

Then  Mr.  Storrs  begins  by  telling  the  Great  American  Baby  that  he, 
Storrs,  don't  know  anything  about  finance,  which  makes  the  baby  feel  com- 
fortable, for  the  baby  don't  know  anything  about  it  either,  and  don't  want  to. 
Then  Storrs  tells  the  Great  American  Baby  that  he  has  been  trying  to  borrow, 
and  the  baby  now  loves  Storrs  truly  and  deeply,  because  the  baby  has  been 
trying  to  borrow  an  extra  pair  of  lungs  to  howl  with  while  the  medical  bears 
were  stretching  its  foot.  "Now,"  says  Storrs,  "I  went  to  Coolbaugh,  which 


Popular  Soothing  Syrup.  49 

being  interpreted  means  Banker,  and  asked  him  if  there  was  plenty  of  money 
to  lend.  Coolbaugh  answered,  'slathers  of  it.'"  Thereupon,  the  Great  Amer- 
ican Baby  sweetly  opens  its  dear,  little,  tiny  eyes,  and  wonders  how  it  could  have 
hurt  so  to  stretch  its  financial  foot,  when  the  banks  all  had  plenty  of  liniment 
in  their  vaults,  and  modestly  asks  Mr.  Storrs  why  it  didn't  get  the  benefit  of 
any  of  the  all-healing  ointment.  "Just  the  point,"  says  Storrs.  "  I  asked 
him  for  some  of  it — about  $5000  would  do — and  Coolbaugh  asked  me  for  my 
collateral."  Here  the  Great  American  Baby,  with  a  precocious  stare,  asks  if 
"collateral'"  is  the  bottle  that  keeps  the  ointment  from  spilling,  "Just  what  I 
asked  Coolbaugh/'  says  Storrs.  "  Coolbaugh  told  me  it  was-  grain  certificates 
— receipts  for  grain  deposited  by  me  in  the  elevators.  Then,  says  I  to  Cool- 
baugh, if  I  owned  grain  deposited  in  an  elevator,  and  which  I  could. sell  for 
cash  fit  any  moment,  or  anything  else  that  I  could  sell,  would  I  come  here  to 
borrow  ?  "  "  So,"  said  Storrs  to  the  Great  American  Baby,  "I  found  there  was 
plenty  of  money  for  all  persons  who  have  plenty  of  corn  in  the  elevators. 
Ergo,"  says  Storrs,  "the  article  in  which  we  need  inflation  is  corn  and  other 
collaterals,  not  currency.  People  who  have  got  plenty  of  corn  can  get  plenty 
of  money, 'and  people  who  don't  own  any  corn,  don't  need  any."  Thereupon, 
the  Great  American  Baby  looked  sweetly  and  confidingly  np  into  the  eyes  of 
the  Republican  party,  and  gently  murmuring.  "Let  Storrs,  Hayes,  Tom  Jones 
or  the  devil  run  the  country,  its  all  one  to  me,"  went  to  sleep. 

That  is  the  best  stump  speech  ever  made,  because  the  most  powerfully 
sedative.  If  it  has  any  rival,  it  would  be  the  case  of  Nero  fiddling  while  Rome 
was  burning. 

Institutions  in  which  there  is  no  better  sorting  of  men  for  public  office  than 
that  which  can  be  made  by  the  people  in  their  primitive  mass-meeting  capac- 
ity, compel  all  candidates  for  office  to  be  of  the  stamper  grade — they  must 
consecrate  their  lives  to  humbug.  The  same  fate  which  would  befall  our  other 
trades  requiring  special  skill,  if  the  men  who  are  to  manage  them  were  to  be 
selected  in  town  meeting,  (and  all  universal  suffrage  is  an  enlarged  town 
meeting,)  befalls  statesmanship.  Suppose  the  question  who  were  to  run 
Giles'  Bros,  jewelry  store  next  year,  or  Field  &  Leiter's  dry  goods  store,  or 
John  Wentworth's  farm,  were  put  to  popular  vote,  and  Timothy  Cronan,  non- 
tax-payer, should  take  the  place  of  Giles  Bros.  &  Co.,  and  bring  the  experience 
he  had  acquired  in  dredging  to  the  sale  of  diamonds;  could  you  trust  the  dia- 
monds you  were  buying  there  any  longer,  or  would  not  fraud  be  written  over 
every  counter?  Suppose  that,  by  the  universal  suffrage  of  South  Chicago,  the 
conduct  of  Field  &  Leiter's  business  could  be  transferred  to  some  very  intelli- 
gent politician,  say  to  sheriff  Kern,  how  would  this  kind  of  rotation  affect  the 
skill,  how  would  the  perpetual  necessity  of  pretending  to  comprehend  what 
they  did  not,  affect  the  honesty  with  which  the  business  would  be  conducted? 

Statesmanship  is  the  crowning  achievement  of  human  society — the  adap- 
tation of  the  largest  experience,  genius  and  learning  to  the  comprehension 
of  the  wants  of  the  grandest  nation,  when  upheld  and  represented  by  hundreds 
of  its  foremost  minds.  It  can  not  be  the  work  of  one  man  alone,  nor  can  it 
emanate  from,  or  be  be  inspired  by,  an  uninstructed  mass  of  ignorant  men, 


50  Responsible   Government. 

though  they  number  by  countless  millions.  No  possible  aggregation  of  igno- 
rance, however  extended  or  unanimous,  becomes  wisdom.  The  very  nation  in 
which  it  is  to  be  exhibited  must  form  an  arena  worthy  of  its  power.  It  must 
rise  towards  its  pinnacle,  upheld  by  the  support  of  a  vast,  aristocracy  of  intel- 
lect and  of  merit.  Each  person  who  assumes  to  fill  a  niche  in  its  temple, 
must  devote  his  life  to  the  sublime  st.udy  of  the  true  wants,  weaknesses, 
interests,  powers,  needs,  capacities  and  forces  which  combine  to  constitute 
the  mighty  sweep  and  current  of  the  nation's  being;  to  the  great  work  of 
amending  individual  judgments  by  exhibiting  to  them  a  judgment  more  com- 
prehensive and  more  nearly  universal;  and  of  reconciling  the  conflict  of  in- 
terest and  passion  which  disturbs  the  superficial  minds  that  are  delving  for 
ores  around  the  base  of  life's  vast  altitudes,  by  towering  above  them  into  the 
eternal  spaces  where  law  makes  known  its  unity,  and  undisturbed  philoso- 
phy and  reason  forever  reign. 

Human  law  is  the  correction  of  individual  errors,  by  conforming  human 
conduct  to  the  higher  reason  of  the  aggregate  of  cultured  minds.  Statesman- 
ship is  the  reconciliation  of  social  conflicts  of  interest  and  passion,  by  unfold- 
ing to  the  contending  parties  the  broader  view  wherein  is  always  discernible 
the  harmony  of  interests.  Think  you  that  such  a  work  requires  less  prepara- 
tion than  to  make  a  watch  or  to  sell  a  diamond?  No  man  is  fit  to  make  a  law 
on  any  subject  who  does  not  know  what  the  legislation  and  adjudication  on 
that  subject  for  2500  years  have  been,  and  their  effects.  No  man  is  fit  to  pro- 
pose a  public  policy  who  has  not  made  the  observation  of  public  policies  in  all 
nations  his  study,  and  the  evolution  of  public  policies  in  his  own  country  both 
his  study  and  his  profession.  And  yet  we  regard  a  nomination  to  Congress  as 
a  thing  that  any  successful  seller  of  tape  can  have  s£nt  to  his  door,  like  his 
green  groceries,  if  he  pays  for  it. 

The  highest  forms  of  statesmanship  must  be  in  part  inherited.  All  their 
materials  can  not  be  matured  in  one  generation.  The -William  Pitt  who  over- 
threw Napoleon  would  have  lacked  the  force  of  will  at  sixty,  had  he  been 
required  to  wait  until  that  period  for  the  opportunity,  and  he  would  have 
Lacked  the  opportunity  at  twenty-five,  had  he  been  compelled  to  crowd  up  be- 
tween the  people  as  a  stumper.  Therefore,  Democratic  institutions  can  pro- 
duce no  William  Pitts,  because  they  supply  no  Lord  Clvathams.  whose  prestige 
can  lift  their  sons  at  twenty-five  into  opportunities  of  statesmanship.  A  cen- 
tury of  the  American  Republic  has  never  produced  one  political  leader  who 
was  also,  like  Macauley,  a  historian,  or  like  Lord  Derby,  a  classic  scholar, 
or  like  Disraeli,  a  leader  also  in  the  world  of  letters  and  in  the  social  world. 
Nor  could  the  present  Disraeli  have  attained  this  three-fold  mastery  over 
society,  over  literature  and  over  politics,  if  required  to  work  his  way  upward 
on  the  American  stump.  Three  generations  were  required  to  produce  such 
a  success:  the  first,  by  accumulating  the  wealth,  rescued  him  from  the  neces- 
sity of  devoting  his  life  to  the  lower  ambitions;  the  second,  by  accumulating 
the  scholarship,  endowed  him  early  with  what  other  men  had  done.  The 
present  Disraeli's  success  began  where  that  of  his  sire  left  off.  The  qualities 
which  would  enable  him  to  fill  the  three-fold  position,  viz:  those  of  gentleman, 


The  Reign  of  the  Stumpers.  51 

scholar,  and  man  of  genius,  would  shut  him  out  of  a  seat  in  any  one  of  our 
State  Legislntures.  Being  a  gentleman,  he  would  not  solicit  or  barter  for  or 
buy  the  votes  of  the  political  bummers  and  strikers  of  his  district,  without 
which  he  could  not  receive  the  nomination.  Being  a  scholar,  his  opinions 
would  sever  him  from  sympathy  with  the  crudities  of  which  the  political 
ignorance  of  the  mass  of  the  voters  of  his  district  would  consist,  and  he  could 
not  represent  them  without  being  on  their  plane.  Being  a  man  of  genius,  he 
would  perceive,  clearly,  how  futile  was  the  effort  to  make  a  government  by 
the  lower  classes  result  in  a  wise  government,  and  would  have  nothing  to  do 
with  it,  unless  it  were  in  the  capacity  of  a  revolutionist. 

The  reign  of  the  race  of  stumpers,  the  product  of  American  institutions, 
began  with  the  war  of  1812,  prior  to  which  the  country,  in  gratitude  for  the 
aid  received  from  royal  and  aristocratic  France,  in  1778,  under  King  Louis, 
LaFayette  and  Rochambeau,  had  broken  out  into  a  fervor  of  sympathy  with 
the  French  Republic,  under  Robespierre,  Marat,  and  Danton,  which  culminated 
in  rendering'  us  allies  to  the  Napoleonic  despotism,  for  which  we  fought  under 
the  banner  of  free  ships,  until  its  overthrow  compelled  us  to  receive  peace  at 
the  hands  of  the  allied  powers  of  Europe;  though  most  Americans,  for  fifty 
years  afterward,  thought  that,  the  battle  of  New  Orleans,  fought  five  weeks 
after  the  treaty  of  peace  was  signed,  settled  the  conflict.  Our  next  conspicu- 
ous act  of  infatuation  and  stumperism  was  the  beginning,  made  in  1820,  and 
continued  until  1860,  in  treating  the  slavery  question  sentimentally  and  pas- 
sionately on  both  sides,  like  a  mob  or  a  nest  of  fishwives,  while  the  Czars  of 
Russia  were  treating  it  coolly,  dispassionately  and  economically,  forecasting, 
by  their  legislation,  as  early  as  1828  to  1830,  the  final  abolition  of  the  slavery 
of  four  and  a  half  times  as  many  slaves  as  disturbed  our  peace;  so  that  while 
we  precipitated  emancipation  on  the  subject  race  unadvisedly,  at  a  cost  of 
half  the  values  in  the  country,  to-wit:  of  §9,000,000,000,  and  of  1,000,000  lives, 
Russia  perfected  a  greater  result  advisedly  and  gradually,  without  the  cost  of 
a  dollar  or  a  sigh. 

The  crushing,  under  Andrew  Jackson,  of  the  United  States  Bank,  founded 
by  Hamilton,  and  the  subsequent  war  against  institutions  of  credit  and  against 
credit  itself,  are  exactly  on  a  par  with  the  North  American  Indian's  hostility 
to  fences,  farms,  herds  and  all  private  property.  The  Indian  hates  a  farm  as 
he  does  a  telegraph  pole,  because  it  expresses  something  he  don't  understand, 
and  Jackson,  the  Indian  fighter,  just  one  grade  in  advance  of  the  Indian  in 
statesmanship,,  and  no  more,  hated  a  bank  for  the  same  reason,  because  he  was 
as  densely  ignorant  of  political  science  as  an  Indian  is  of  electric  science. 

For  twenty-five  years  the  force  of  our  nation  has  been  expended  in  proving 
that  the  majority  of  the  people  in  one  section  can  play  the  Caesar  over  a  minor- 
ity in  another,  and  hold  them  within  their  grasp,  however  unitedly  they  may 
wish  themselves  out  of  it,  may  abolish  their  institutions  and  constitutions,  and 
revolutionize  their  social  life,  without  giving  any  other  explanation  of  the 
reason  than  that,  they  have  the  power,  t.  e.,  without  attempting  to  show  that 
such  an  exercise  of  authority  redounds  to  the  greatest  good,  either  of  the  con- 


52  Responsible  Government. 

quered  people  or  of  the  conquerors.  To  all  these  results  stumperism  is  fully 
equal,  and  statesmanship  is  not  requisite. 

Imagine  the  ascendency  of  capital  in  the  Legislature  of  Great  Britain  taken 
away,  by  abolishing  the  House  of  Lords  and  delivering  the  country  over  to 
universal  suffrage,  and  the  same  war  upon  the  banks,  capital,  credit  and 
finances  of  the  country,  which  has  occurred  here,  would  transpire  there,  for 
the  class  of  men  who  are  ignorant  of  political  economy  make  war  on  all  forms 
of  public  and  private  credit,  as  instinctively  as  the  Chinese  oppose  railroads, 
or  the  Indian,  fences.  By  destroying  the  security  of  capital  they  would  send 
rates  of  interest  up  to  8  to  12  per  cent.,  would  destroy  England's  ascendency 
in  manufactures  and  finance,  and  would  reduce  her  in  a  few  years  to  a  Repub- 
lic without  external  possessions,  and  numbering,  perhaps,  half  her  present 
population. 

The  people  who  have  exhibited  a  greater  genius  for  government  than  any 
other  in  history,  were  the  Roman.  For  eight  hundred  years  they  ruled  the 
political  world,  virtually  giving  rise  to  both  ancient  and  modern  civilization. 
So  long  as  the  Roman  aristocracy,  through  the  representation  of  capital  in  her 
system  of  voting,  were  able  to  counteract  the  folly  of  the  alien  mob  of  people 
of  all  nations  which  came  under  their  sway,  Rome  ruled  herself  and  the  world. 
Her  demoralization  and  downfall  as  a  political  power  were  directly  the  result 
of  withdrawing  power  from  capital  and  giving  it  to  numbers;  and  as  if  on 
purpose  to  demonstrate  that  the  Roman  aristocracy  still  retained  its  vigor 
when  it  had  lost  its  control  over  the  State,  it  transferred  its  control  to  the 
church,  and  under  the  name  of  Italian  Cardinals  the  same  Roman  blood  has 
swayed  Christendom  for  sixteen  centuries,  and  now,  with  a-vigor  as  of  peren- 
nial youth,  rules  the  consciences  of  180,000,000  souls.  The  key  to  this  ruler- 
ship  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  Rome,  both  in  its  secular  and  religious 
empire,  governed  from  above  downwards,  impressing  the  genius  and  will  of 
the  capable  upon  the  dullness  and  inertia  of  the  incapable.  Twenty-five  years 
of  government  from  the  people  upwards,  by  universal  suffrage,  the  pews  ruling 
the  priests  and  the  priests  the  bishops,  would  demolish  the  Roman  Church  as 
it  did  the  Roman  State. 

In  the  Republic  of  Rome  there  were  three  modes  of  voting,  which  distin- 
guished, respectively,  the  .infancy,  the  ascendency  and  the  decay  of  the  State. 
In  the  eai-liest  mode,  known  as  the  Comitia  Curiala,  only  the  patricians  or  aris- 
tocracy voted,  but  the  vote  of  one  patrician  was  equal  to  that  of  another,  as  in 
the  British  House  of  Lords.  From  that,  Rome  passed  to  the  more  complex  vote 
by  centuries,  known  as  the  Comitia  Centuriata.  The  people  were  divided  at 
the  census  into  six  classes,  according  to  their  wealth.  As  the  purchasing 
power  of  Roman  money  can  not  be  accurately  expressed  in  modern  money, 
it  may  be  proximately  accurate  to  say  that  all  worth  upwards  of  $1,000.000 
were  in  the  first  class,  and  had  thirty-five  parts  in  a  hundred  of  the  voting 
power  of  the  State,  and  furnished  thirty-five  hundredths  of  the  army  and  the 
treasury.  Those  worth  less  than  $1,000,000,  and  more  than  $500,000,  were 
in  the  second  class,  and  furnished  one-quarter  of  the  army  and  of  the  revenue, 
and  enjoyed  one-quarter  of  the  voting  power.  An  absolute  union  of  the  first 


Mr.  Calhoun's  System.  53 

and  second  classes,  therefore,  could  carry  any  measure,  and  the  vote  of  the 
other  classes  needed  not  to  be  taken.  If,  however,  a  vote  of  the  first  and 
second  classes  failed  to  exhibit  a  majority  of  the  whole,  then  the  third  class, 
worth  say  $100,000,  or  the  fourth,  worth  $50,000,  or  the  fifth,  worth  $10,000,  or 
the  sixth,  worth  SoOO,  would  be  consulted.  In  practice,  the  §500  class  was 
seldom  consulted,  and  I  think  it  is  literally  true  that  the  votes  of  persons  who 
have  never  been  able  to  accumulate  $500  in  property,  upon  any  question  of 
State  policy,  may  safely  be  taken  last. 

Under  no  system  of  government  has  the  "inseparability  of  taxation  and 
representation  been  preserved  and  vindicated  in  so  logical,  perfect  and  mas- 
terly a  way  as  in  this  Roman  system  of  voting  by  centuries.  The  right,  to 
cast  a  certain  voting  power,  grew  out  of  the  possession  of  a  corresponding 
amount  of  assessed  capital,  and  carried  with  it  inseparably  the  obligation  to 
contribute  a  corresponding  ratio  of  the  army  and  the  revenue.  It  was  this 
identity  of  taxation  and  representation,  this  system  of  voting  by  centuries, 
which  advanced  Rome  to  be  the  ruler  of  the  world. 

The  third  system  of  voting,  known  as  voting  by  tribes,  or  Comitia  Tributa, 
admitted  the  plebeians,  freedmen,  aliens  and  uon-property-holders  to  vote  on 
an  equality  with  the  aristocracy,  whereupon,  of  course,  the  aristocracy  stopped 
voting  altogether,  and  the  crazy  Roman  mob  were  the  saddled  asses  on  which 
the  Caesars  rode  into  power;  thus  making  universal  suffrage,  when  divested  of 
the  counteracting  influence  of  capital,  the  stepping  stone  to  the  complete  aboli- 
tion of  all  suffrage,  and  the  subversion  of  the  Republic  by  the  Empire,  which, 
in  its  turn,  was  ground  to  powder  between  barbaric  force  and  religious  super- 
stition. But  to  the  end  of  time  it  will  stand  recorded  that  the  ascendency  of 
the  Roman  race,  as  well  as  of  the  British,  over  the  world,  (and  they  have  been 
the  two  governing  races  of  the  world,)  has  been  due  to  the  joint  ascendency 
given  to  capital  and  numbers  in  their  constitutions — or  as  Mr.  Calhoun  would 
express  it,  to  the  fact  that  their  constitutions  secured  the  concurrent  assent 
of  the  majority  of  property,  as  well  as  of  the  majority  of  polls,  to  all  policies. 

On  this  subject  no  American  statesman  has  thought  to  any  purpose,  so  far 
as  I  am  aware,  except  Mr.  Calhouu,  in  his  celebrated  disquisition  on  Govern- 
ment. He  may.  perhaps,  have  been  led  to  think  of  it  by  the  reflection  that  the 
peculiar  form  of  capital  in  which  the  wealth  of  the  South  was  so  largely  in- 
vested, viz:  slave  capital,  would  be  that  which  a  despotism  of  mere  numbers 
would  be  the  first  to  abolish,  whereas,  had  the  capital  of  the  country  had  a 
veto  on  the  action  of  numbers,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  extinction  of 
slavery,  instead  of  being  the  subject  of  a  sentimental,  passionate  and  bloody 
war,  would  have  been  as  gradual  and  peaceful  in  this  country  as  in  Russia, 
and  would  have  occurred!  just  as  fast,  and  no  faster,  than  the  pecuniary  inter- 
ests of  both  the  master  and  the  slave  would  have  combined  to  render  it  mutu- 
ally desirable,  and  the  1,000,000  men  lost  in  abolishing  it  would  have  been 
alive,  and  the  $9,000,000,000  spent  in  destroying  it  would  have  been  saved. 
Whatever  were  Mr.  Calhoun's  inducements  to  reflect  upon  the  insecurity  of 
capital  under  a  despotism  of  mere  numbers,  he  took  the  ground  in  his  re- 
markable disquisition  on  Government,  that  governments  are  constitutional  and 


54  Responsible   Government. 

enduring  only  when  they  combine  the  concurring  majorities  of  each  of  the 
distinct  forces  which  go  to  make  up  the  power  of  society.  If  the  priesthood 
and  religion  really  govern  society,  as  they  do  in  Turkey,  Italy,  Spain  and 
Mexico,  then  they  will  have  power  enough  to  overturn  any  State  in  which 
they  are  not  represented.  If  the  landholders  are  the  chief  social  force,  as  in 
Germany,  France  and  England,  then  a  government  which  ignores  the  land- 
holders, and  rests,  for  instance,  on  the  priests,  must  fall  or  give  place  to  one 
in  which  the  landholders  are  represented.  If  the  army  and  the  aristocracy 
are  the  chief  forces  in  the  State,  as  they  were  in  Rome,  then  their  ascendency 
must  be  acknowledged  in  the  constitution,  or  they  will  overthrow  the  constitu- 
tion which  ignores  them.  And  finally,  if  the  church,  and  the  army,  and  the 
landholders  and  capitalists,  all  cease  to  be  a  force  in  the  State,  as  they  do  in 
communities  where  capital  is  equally  diffused,  and  there  are  a  hundred  sects, 
and  no  standing  army  exists,  there  numbers  become  a  ruling  power,  and  any 
constitution  which  fails  to  respect  them  will  fall. 

Mr.  Calhoun  defined  a  despotism  as  being  a  government  which  attempted 
to  rule  society  exclusively  by  one  of  its  forces,  whether  such  force  were  the 
church,  the  army,  the  landholders,  or  mere  numbers,  i.  e.,  the  mob.  He  defined 
a  constitutional  government  as  one  which  provided  for  gathering  up  and  rep- 
resenting the  views  of  each  of  the  ruling  forces  of  the  State  in  a  co-ordinate 
branch  of  the  Legislature,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  give  to  its  united  voice  a 
veto  on  the  action  of  the  other  forces  of  the  State.  If  numbers,  therefore,  were 
represented  in  the  lower  branch  of  a  State  Legislature,  and  capital  in  the  upper, 
he  called  this  a  government  by  concurring  majorities,  i.  e.,  the  majority  or 
voice  of  numbers  concurring  with  the  majority  or  voice  of  capital;  whereas, 
if  numbers  merely  elected  both  branches  of  the  Legislature,  the  government 
not  having  provided  itself  with  any  machinery  by  which  it  could  take  the 
views  or  listen  to  the  voice  of  capital,  would  be,  as  to  capital,  a  hostile,  un- 
compromising despotism,  deaf  to  the  voice  of  persuasion,  and  can'ying  out  all 
its  decrees  by  force.  Mr.  Calhoun  pointed  out,  very  clearly,  the  tendency 
which  the  majority  would  have,  not  only  to  tyrannize  over  the  minority,  but 
to  vest  so  large  a  share  of  power  in  its  individual  chieftain,  the  President  for 
instance,  as  would  expand  his  powers  into  those  of  an  Emperor,  while  still 
wearing  the  title  of  a  President,  and  would  enable  him  to  override  both  the 
will  of  the  Legislature,  of  the  judiciary,  of  his  constitutional  advisers,  and  of 
his  own  party.  The  careers  of  Andrew  Jackson,  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  of 
Andrew  Johnson,  and  of  Mr.  Hayes,  illustrated,  with  different  results,  this 
tendency  of  the  leader  to  absorb  in  himself  the  despotic  power  accorded  to 
his  party.  Jackson,  of  his  individual  will,  abolished  the  bank.  Lincoln,  of 
his  individual  will,  inaugurated  the  war  for  the  Union,  and  converted  it  into 
a  war  for  emancipation.  Johnson  attempted  to  reconstruct  the  South  without 
consulting  Congress  or  the  people,  and  was  defeated.  But  Hayes,  of  his  indi- 
vidual will,  released  the  South  from  further  Federal  subjugation. 

It  will  thus  be  seen,  that,  according  to  Mr.  Calhoun's  definition,  our  State 
governments  are  all  unconstitutional  despotisms,  in  which  both  political  par- 
ties combined,  and  the  entire  State  government,  represent  but  one  of  the  forces 


How  Capital  should  Vote.  55 

of  society,  there  being  no  provision  for  affording  an  authoritative  expression 
to  either  capital,  or  culture,  or  character,  or  experience. 

Mr.  Calhoun  did  not  intimate  that  he  thought,  there  were  any  other  forces 
in  American  society  so  strong  as  to  need  representation  in  our  forms  of  gov- 
ernment, except  those  of  numbers  and  capital,  nor  did  he  outline  the  system 
of  voting,  either  by  the  people  or  in  the  Legislature,  whereby  the  representa- 
tion of  capital,  concurrently  with  numbers,  could  best  be  secured.  The  modes 
of  representing  capital,  either  in  Europe  -or  in  the  Republics  of  Greece 
and  Rome,  are  not  fitted  to  deserve  favor  here.  The  nobleman  in  the 
English  House  of  Lords  is  in  no  strict  sense  a  representative  of  any  body's 
capital  but  his  own,  nor  are  his  sympathies  identified  with  the  interests  of 
that  portion  of  the  capital  of  the  country  invested  in  manufactures,  banking 
or  trade,  except  as  some  of  his  tenants  may  be  manufacturers,  bankers  or 
traders,  but  only  with  that  portion  invested  in  land.  This  has  made  the  Brit- 
ish House  of  Lords,  while  a  politic,  compromisiug,  and  adroit,  yet,  in  the 
main,  a  narrow,  bigoted,  and  unrepresentative  body,  and  has  caused  the 
power  to  pass  from  it  to  the  House  of  Commons,  whereas,  if  the  House  of  Lords 
were  so  re-organized  as  to  represent,  logically  and  by  proxy,  the  entire  capital 
of  the  country,  it  would  speedily  return  to  an  equality  in  influence  with  the 
House  of  Commons. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  outline  the  mode  in  which,  in  American  Legisla- 
tures, representation  might  be  given  to  capital.  Let  every  State  and  city  in 
this  country,  for  the  purpose  of  electing  the  upper  branch  of  its  Legislature, 
be  treated  as  a  financial  corporation,  for  such  in  fact  it  is,  in  which  the  inte- 
gral unit  to  be  voted  upon,  corresponding  to  a  share  in  the  corporation,  is  the 
dollar  of  taxable  property.  Let  every  man  cast  a  vote  corresponding  either 
to  the  number  of  dollars  on  which  he  pays  taxes,  or  if  the  taxing  system  should 
be  changed,  as  it  probably  would  under  such  a  method,  from  a  tax  on  capital 
to  a  tax  on  incomes  and  earnings,  then  to  the  amount  of  taxes  he  pays.  Thus 
much  would  be  fundamental.  The  other  details  would  be  matters  of  expediency. 
If  the  representation  of  the  majority,  only,  of  capital  were  deemed  expedient, 
then  a  prescribed  number  of  members  would  be  voted  for,  and  a  prescribed 
amount  of  capital  must  vote  for  each  member  to  perfect  his  election.  The 
entire  capital  of  the  State  being  a  trifle  over  52,000,000,000,  if  the  number  of 
members  were  fifty,  then  each  member  elected  would  have  to  be  voted  for  by 
a  little  more  than  one-fiftieth  of  §1,000,000,000,  or  by  §20,000,000.  If  majori- 
ties of  capital  only  are  sought  to  be  represented,  as  they  are  of  numbers,  the 
members  of  the  house  representing  capital  might  be  elected  at  one  time,  and 
serve  for  a  given  period,  as  our  present  members  representing  numbers  are 
and  do.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  instead  of  the  majority  of  capital  only  being 
represented  in  the  Legislature,  it  is  preferred  that  the  whole  capital  of  the 
State  should  be  represented,  then  there  might  be  no  prescribed  number  of 
members  in  the  upper  house.  Every  tax-paper  might  be  left  free  to  vote  in 
person  or  by  proxy,  for  the  instances  in  which  they  would  care  to  vote  in  per- 
son would  be  very  few,  ard  the  weight  of  the  vote  of  a  single  tax-payer  would 
be  very  small  in  a  body  in  which  the  entire  capital  of  the  State  voted. 


56  Responsible   Government. 

Suppose,  for  instance,  that  all  the  railroads  in  the  State,  combined,  should 
send  their  proxies  to  one  member,  he  would  cast  a  vote  for  $130,000,000  of 
property,  in  a  body  wherein  die  other  tax-payers,  mostly  agricultural,  would 
c&st  a  vote  on  $1,870,000,000,  the  railroads  having  about  one-fourteenth  of  the 
power  in  the  capitalist  branch  of  the  Legislature.  Who  believes  that  the 
railroads  of  Illinois,  Pennsylvania  or  New  York,  where  they  have  no  legiti- 
mate representation  at  all,  and  their  only  weapon  is  bribery,  do  not  wield  a 
power  greater  than  one-fourteenth  of  the  aggregate  political  power  of  the 
State?  The  power  they  attain  unrepresented,  by  corruption,  is  far  greater 
than  th,e  power  they  are  legitimately  entitled  to;  but  as  at  present  purchased, 
it  is  a  power  which  will  be  exercised  more  and  more  each  year  by  local  Illi- 
nois and  New  York  railroad  rings,  to  rob  both  the  people  of  the  State  and  the 
foreign  stockholders  in  these  railroads. 

But  to  return.  If  the  entire  capital  of  the  State,  and  not  merely  the 
majority  of  capital,  is  designed  to  be  represented,  then  each  tax-payer 
should  have  the  privilege  of  voting,  either  in  person  or  by  proxy.  There 
would  be  no  general  election  of  members  of  the  upper  house,  but  proxies 
might  be  forwarded  to  the  book-keeper  of  the  Senate,  by  mail  or  other- 
wise, as  checks  are  sent  in  to  a  bank,  each  proxy  authorizing  a  given 
person  to  cast  the  vote  of  a  given  tax-payer,  in  form  thus:  "John  Smith, 
Chicago,  votes  for  Richard  Roe,  of  Springfield,  for  Senator;  taxable  property, 
$20,000."  The  book-keeper  of  the  Senate  would  make  up  each  day  or  week 
the  account  current  of  each  member  and  of  all  the  proxies,  verifying  it,  as  to 
the  right  of  the  voter  to  vote  on  the  amount  of  capital  which  he  purported  to 
vote  upon,  by  the  returns  which  would  be  required  to  be  forwarded  each  year 
by  the  assessors  and  collectors  of  taxes  of  towns  to  the  State  comptroller, 
showing  the  amount  of  taxes  paid  during  the  preceding  fiscal  year  by  every 
tax-payer  in  the  State.  Each  member  voting  would  not,  as  in  the  British 
House  of  Lords,  cast  a  vote  equal  to  any  other,  but  he  w"ould  cast  the  vote  of 
the  property  represented  by  the  sum  of  his  proxies,  whether  it  were  $1,000,000 
or  $500,000,000.  Theoretically,  therefore,  if  the  entire  property  of  the  State 
chose  to  vest  in  one  individual  the  power  of  a  veto  on  the  action  of  the  mere 
numerical  majority,  it  could  do  so,  but  it  would  be  very  unlikely  to  vest  such 
a  power,  except  in  some  person  whose  single  judgment  would  be  unimpeach- 
able. And,  on  the  other  hand,  should  a  member  lose  the  confidence  of  his  con- 
stituency, they  could,  by  the  next  morning's  mail,  forward  the  proxies  hereto- 
fore held  by  him  to  a  new  or  another  member,  and  so,  in  a  day,  retire  from 
power  the  one  who  had  proved  recreant  to  his  trust.  Such  a  system  would 
involve  some  book-keeping,  but  the  quantity  would  be  insignificant  compared 
with  that  of  a  bank  or  clearing-house,  and,  as  a  result,  the  entire  capital  of 
the  State  would  each  moment  be  represented  by  a  member  responsible,  from 
day  to  day,  to  his  constituency.  Compared  with  such  a  system  for  the  repre- 
sentation of  capital,  the  British  House  of  Lords  is  as  clumsy  and  antiquated 
as  a  Mexican  plow,  and  even  the  Roman  method  of  voting  by  centuries  was 
less  logical. 


Witt  the  American  People  desire  it.  57 

The  representation  of  capital  would  practically  accomplish  most  of  the  re- 
sults which  would  be  reaped  from  a  representation  of  culture  and  character, 
yet  it  would  be  quite  practicable  to  give  a  representation  to  the  latter.  It 
might  consist,  in  part,  in  regarding  certain  degrees  of  official  experience,  and 
certain  classes  of  services  rendered  to  science  and  literature,  as  the  equivalent 
(for  voting  purposes)  of  a  given  amount  of  property.  Such,  in  outline,  would  be 
Mr.  Calhoun's  system  of  government  by  concurrent  majorities.  What  would 
be  the  popular  objections  to  it  may  be  easily  conceived.  "It  would  create  a 
House  of  Lords  in  every  State,"  says  one.  "It  would  increase  the  inequalities 
of  society,"  says  another,  "making  the  rich  richer  and  the  poor  poorer,"  says 
a  third.  "It  would  breakdown  the  common  school  system,"  says  a  fourth' 
"  for  the  property  holders  would  never  vote  the  taxes  necessary  to  educate  the 
poor."  "  Why,  the  women  and  the  corporations  would  vote  away  our  liberties," 
says  the  hiccoughing  statesman  from  "  Biler  avenue." 

The  best  way  to  overcome  these  objections  is  to  let  them  die.  Answering 
them  keeps  the  life  in  them.  They  are  exactly  of  the  character  of  the  objections 
which  the  American  Indians  entertain  to  fences,  to  private  property,  and  to  the 
monopoly  every  man  and  woman  asserts  to  the  exclusive  possession  of  his  or 
her  own  scalp. 

It.  is  idle,  however,  to  suggest,  as  a  possible  reform,  any  change  in  our  body 
politic  if  the  change  involves  for  its  feasibility  conditions  which  do  not  exist 
in  our  body  politic.  We  might  as  well  descant  on  an  improvement  in  the 
health  of  our  planet  which  is  to  be  brought  about  by  transferring  to  it  the  at- 
mosphere of  the  planet  Saturn,  as  to  discuss  some  renovation  of  American  in- 
stitutions, which  the  American  people,  or  a  majority  of  them,  can  not  be  induced 
.to  desire.  But  it  is  not  safe  to  affirm  too  positively  in  advance  what  the 
American  people  can  or  can  not  be  induced  to  desire.  Two  years  before  the 
Southern  States  were  reconstructed  on  the  basis  of  impartial  suffrage 
and  equal  political  rights,  as  between  the  two  races,  a  distinguished  U.  S. 
Senator  and  Chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  whose  judgment  as  to  the 
condition  and  progress  of  public  sentiment  was  as  accurate  as  that  of  any 
politician  or  statesman  extant,  informed  me  that  he  had  conferred  personally 
with  all  the  men  whose  votes  were  necessary  to  reconstruct  the  South  on  the 
basis  of  negro  suffrage  and  equal  political  rights,  and  that  not  one  of  them 
would  vote  for  it  under  any  conditions.  I  replied  that  I  thought  the  course  of 
events  would  oblige  them  all  to  vote  for  it  within  two  years,  including  him- 
self,— and  they  all  did.  I  have  known  American  statesmen  who  would  tele- 
graph in  great  haste  from  Washington  to  Chicago  one  week  that  a  certain 
policy  was  not  to  be  advocated,  as  it  would  ruin  the  party  and  the  country,  and 
would  take  the  very  next  train  for  Chicago  in  order  to  get  here  in  time  to  ad- 
dress a  mass  meeting  in  Court  House  Square  in  favor  of  the  same  policy,  and 
this,  not  once,  but  frequently.  He  who  would  foresee  what  public  opinion  will  be 
five,  ten  or  fifty  years  hence,  can  not  learn  it  from  the  clamor  of  to-day's  mob 
on  the  streets,  nor  from  the  talk  of  traders  and  bankers.  He  must  grasp  the 
wants  and  needs  of  society,  and  judge  from  the  laws  of  demand  and  supply, 
which  govern  the  rise  of  institutions  as  they  do  the  price  of  wheat.  The  pro- 


58  Responsible   Government. 

gress  of  a  nation  toward  wealth  implies  a  wide  and  ever  increasing  diffei-en- 
tiation  of  fortunes  and  large  accumulations  of  capital  under  single  control. 
This  process  is  rapidly  going  on  in  America  and  is  already  creating  aggrega- 
tions of  capital  too  powerful  to  submit  to  the  despotism  of  a  communistic  vot- 
ing system  which  is  liable  at  any  moment  to  endanger  or  abolish  any  form  of 
private  property  or  credit  against  which  the  cry  of  demagogues  may  direct  the 
passions  on  the  cupidity  of  the  mob. 

1  concede  that  the  representation  of  capital  as  a  distinct  integral  force  in 
the  State,  worthy  to  counteract  the  impetuosity  and  ignorance  of  mere  numbers, 
will  not  be  brought  about  until  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  political  parties,  contend- 
ing for  the  government  of  the  country  on  the  basis  of  mere  numbers,  shall  be 
driven  to  advocate  it  as  the  means  of  either  atta  nirig  to  power  or  maintaining 
itself  in  power.  It  was  from  this  motive  that  the  Democratic  party  opened  the 
gates  of  the  constitution  to  the  alien,  and  the  Republican  party  opened  the 
same  gates  to  the  negro.  Will  any  political  party  ever  find  it  necessary  to  the 
maintenance  of  its  hold  on  power  to  open  the  gates  of  the  constitution  to  the 
tax-payer?  If  not,  the  tax-payer  will  never  be  represented,  and  all  political 
parties  will  continue  to  hold  the  fundamentally  rotten  proposition  which  now 
underlies  our  State  constitution:  that  A,  B  and  C,  being  the  majority,  can 
divide  the  garment  of  D  among  them  and  cast  lots  for  his  vesture,  because  they 
outnumber  him.  In  the  Northern  States,  the  Republican  party,  by  its  antece- 
dents and  proclivities,  would  be  most  likely  to  become  the  champion  of  capital, 
for  several  reasons,  viz:  first,  that  at  present  by  far  the  greater  majority  of 
its  voters  are  tax-payers,  and  the  actual  and  relative  power  of  the  men  who 
now  constitute  the  bone  and  sinew  of  the  Republican  party  would  be  increased 
five  fold  by  the  measure.  Secondly,  the  measure  would  draw  to  the  Republican 
party  the  vast  majority  of  the  capitalists  of  the  large  cities  who,  either  by  the 
free  trade  or  pro-slavery  proclivities  of  the  Democratic  party,  have  been  Demo- 
crats. The  country  is  liable  at  any  moment  to  drift  into- an  exigency  wherein 
the  Republican  party,  driven  to  the  wall,  could  only,  by  becoming  the  cham- 
pion of  the  square  and  honest  representation  of  capital  in  one  branch  of  every 
Legislature  and  of  every  city  council,  recover  its  position  and  maintain  itself 
in  power.  And  now  thirdly,  the  tendencies  towai-d  agrarian,  socialistic  and 
communistic  legislation  are  such  that  its  antidote,  the  representation  of  capital) 
has  got  to  be  discussed.  However  much  we  may  deprecate  it,  one  or  the 
other  of  the  two  political  parties  will  be  driven  to  it,  and  in  the  Northern 
States  that  party  will  be  likely  to  be  the  Republican — at  the  South,  the 
Democratic.  The  scum  of  society  would  meet  the  proposition  with  a  howl  at 
first,  and1  would  threaten  its  advocates  with  the  lamp  post  and  with  assassi- 
nation. But  the  votes  of  one-half  of  this  scum  could  be  bought,  in  its  favor 
for  $10  each,  and  without  the  votes  of  any  of  them  the  measure  could  be  car- 
ried if  the  tax-payers  unite  upon  it.  In  our  city  governments,  which,  under 
our  present  system,  are  a  rude  and  barbarous  failure,  the  representation  of 
capital  in  one  branch  of-  the  city  council  would  be  of  inestimable  value.  In 
the  city  of  London,  where  the  property  qualification  prevails,  no  member  of 
the  Board  of  Aldermen  has'ever  allowed  his  note  to  go  to  protest,  arid  in  the 


The  Influence  of  Capital.  59 

city  of  Liverpool  the  bankruptcy  of  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen  va- 
cates his  seat.  But  New  York  and  Chicago  have  been  governed  ever  since 
they  were  cities  by  bankrupts  whose  names  often  are  not  to  be  found  in  the 
city  directory,  still  less  on  the  tax  list,  and  the  circumstance  of  one  not.  a 
bankrupt  serving  in  the  city  council  would  be  regarded  as  a  capital  joke.  The 
Chicago  Times,  last  fall,  published  the  amount  of  taxes  paid  by  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Cook  County  Democratic  County  and  Congressional  Convention 
at  about  $27,  and  all  those  paid  by  the  Republican  Convention  at  less  than  §70. 
All  the  men  whose  votes  disposed  of  the  elective  offices  for  500,000  people  did 
not  pay  S100  of  taxes.  Hence,  New  York  never  knows,  within  from  520,000,000 
to  $40.000,000,  how  much  her  debt  is,  and  Chicago  never  knows  how  much  of 
her  debt  is  valid.  Both  cities  are  governed  by  their  vagabonds.  In  the  South- 
ern States  the  Democratic  party  are  the  natural  defenders  of  the  righls  of 
capital,  and  while  there  would  be  nothing  in  such  a  measure  which  would  tend 
to  disfranchise  any  man  on  account  of  color,  the  concurrent  representation 
of  capital  with  numbers  would  rid  every  Southern  State  of  all  fear  of  negro 
domination  until  such  time  as  the  blacks  should  attain  to  a  considerable  share 
of  the  capital  of  the  State.  Indeed,  under  this  system,  the  upper  branch  of  any 
Southern  State  Legislature  would  be  necessarily  white,  or  white  with  the  excep- 
tion of  one  member,  as  the  entire  tax-paying  capital  owned  by  negroes  in  any 
State,  except  Louisiana,  if  concentrated  upon  one  candidate,  would  be  hardly 
or  barely  sufficient  to  elect  him. 

Capital  seeks  permanency  and  skill,  and  abhors  change  and  incompetency. 
The  representation  of  capital  would  impart  permanency  to  the  profession  of 
the  statesman,  and  when  adopted  in  conjunction  with  executive  responsibility, 
it  would  demand  and  develop  skill.  Intelligent  minds  in  all  ages  have  agreed 
that  an  aristocratic  form  of  government  developed  the  highest  deliberative 
capacity  and  executive  skill.  It  was  supposed .  by  many  that  democracy  in 
government  was  conducive  to  honesty,  but  our  American  experiment  has  ex- 
ploded all  that  and  shown  that  democracy  is  only  conducive  to  honesty  when 
it  is  counteracted  by  an  aristocratic  influence.  All  the  unfortunate  tendencies 
to  misgovernment  which  I  have  traced  as  the  direct  result  of  the  non-represen- 
tation of  capital  would  be  cured  by  its  representation.  Dishonesty  would  be 
eliminated  from  politics,  for  nothing  but  dishonesty  can  logically  be  expected 
from  a  system  in  which  robbery  is  the  chief  corner-stone.  Dignity  would  be 
restored  to  politics,  for  nothing  but  vulgarity  can  be  expected  from  a  system 
which  fails  to  recognize  the  very  first  quality  of  virtue  cognizable  by  the 
human  conscience,  viz:  the  virtue  of  the  man  who  acquires,  relatively  to  the 
•vice  of  him  who  merely  and  frivolously  dissipates.  Our  institutions,  for  the 
first  time  in  our  history,  would  be  founded  upon  justice,  for  there  is  no  justice 
in  confiscation  nor  in  unqualified  communism.  We  should  be  able  to  retain  in 
the  public  service  statesmen  who  ventured  to  draw  their  inspiration  from  higher 
sources  than  the  clamor  of  the  liquor  saloons,  and  the  scarcely  more  intelligent 
clamor  of  a  superficial  and  often  venal  press.  In  conjunction  with  a  responsible 
system  of  government,  by  dissolvable  legislatures  and  resignable  ministries,  it 
would  eliminate  from  our  political  system  the  p^n-erof  the  caucus  and  the  con- 


60  Responsible    Government. 

vent  ion,  those  great  conspicuous  shams  which  overtower  all  the  minor  forms  of 
American  incompetency  and  knavery.  It  would  introduce  into  our  social  fabric 
that  due  antagonism  of  centrifugal  and  centripetal  forces,  of  capital  and  labor, 
of  aristocracy  and  democracy,  which  are  but  illustrations  of  the  divine  truth  that 
all  enduring  forms  of  action,  all  forces  which  contain  the  elements  of  perpetuity, 
all  constitutions  which  are  to  outlast  the  centuries,  all  laws  which  are  to  range 
in  harmony  with  the  infinite  unity  of  la*,v,  must  be,  not  the  mere  expression  of  a 
solitary  force,  but  the  result  of  a  union  of  antagonistic  forces.  For  the  unity  of 
law  is  as  perfect  in  politics  as  in  chemistry.  Oxygen  without  nitrogen  is 
death.  Nitrogen  without  oxygen  is  death.  No  two  substances  antagonize 
each  other  more  powerfully  or  unite  more  firmly.  So  of  gravitation  and 
cohesion,  matter  and  soul,  liberty  and  law,  and  so  finally  of  capital  and  labor, 
of  aristocracy  and  democracy.  If  a.  divine  truth  underlies  the  statement  that 
no  government  can  be  permanent  in  which  these  two  principles  are  not  jointly 
represented — if  a  government  by  mere  numbers  is  inherently  as  much  a  des- 
potism as  a  government  by  one — then  he  who  advocates  this  divine  truth  need 
not  wait  long  for  its  apprehension.  He  is  at  best  but  a  yard  or  two  in  advance 
of  the  mighty  tread  of  the  millions. 

For  humanity  sweeps  onward.  Where  to-day  the  martyr  stands, 
On  the  morrow  crouches  Judas,  with  the  silver  in  his  hands. 
In  the  van  the  stake  is  ready  and  the  lurid  faggot  burns, 
While  the  hooting  mob  of  yesterday  in  silent  awe  returns, 
And  gathers  up  the  scattered  ashes  into  history's  golden  urns. 
I  humbly  trust  we  are  approaching  an  epoch  of  Constitutional  Invention, 
Investigation  and  Reform.  The  deep  distrust,  profound,  restless  and  danger- 
ous as  the  heavings  of  the  ocean  in  its  wrath,  which  pervades  American  soci- 
ety in  all  its  highths  and  depths,  indicates  that  we  are  living  in  a  period 
wherein  fetich  worship  is  dead,  and  the  constitutions  bequeathed  to  us  by  our 
ancestors  must  be  judged  like  the  trees,  by  their  fruits, — like  the  mechanism, 
by  the  harmony  and  fitness  with  which  it  accomplishes  an  excellent  and 
perfect  result.  To  the  examination  of  such  questions  we  need  to  bring  the 
broadest  and  most  catholic  spirit  of  scientific  investigation,  combined  with  the 
highest  inspiration  of  patriotic  rectitude.  We  need  to  study  the  constitutions 
of  all  States,  for  we  may  say  of  constitutions  as  Goethe  says  of  languages,  "  who 
does  not  know  another,  does  not  know  his  own."  Let  us  expunge  from  public 
opinion  that  narrow  stupidity  which,  instead  of  welcoming  suggestions  from 
every  hand,  says  to  the  critic  of  our  institutions,  as  but  a  few  years  ago  it 
said  to  those  who  criticised  slavery  in  America:  "If  you  like  other  govern- 
ments better,  go  and  live  under  them."  As  if  any  class  could  do  more  honor 
to  America  than  those  who  try  to  make  it  what  it  ought  to  be.  None  are 
competent  for  the  work  who  are  not  willing  to  borrow  from  each  nation  and 
period  every  excellence  which  American  institutions  can  receive,  even  as 
the  religious  Roman  thought  not  his  pantheon  complete  so  long~as  the  traveler 
from  any  clime  failed  to  find  there  the  god  he  worshiped.  As  a  true  American, 
I  cannot  rest  so  long  as  any  excellence  pertaining  to  any  government  or  state 
of  society  is  wanting  in  my  offci. 


DRIFTING  TOWARD  COMMUNISM ; 

OR, 

THE   TENDENCY  OF   THE    RULE   OF   NON-TAX- 
PAYERS     TOWARD       AGRARIANISM, 
DIS-UNION  AND  CIVIL  WAR. 


THE  first  fifty  years  of  our  national  life  were  presided  over  by  politicians 
who  were  not  the  product  of  our  institutions,  but  the  authors  of  them. 
They  had  been  produced  by  preceding  and  mainly  English  civilization.  Only 
within  the  last  fifty  years  have  our  institutions  been  guided  by  the  men  whom 
they  have  produced.  Now  we  begin  to  see  their  drift,  and  compare  their  net 
results  with  those  produced  under  more  aristocratic  conditions.  We  can  now 
approach  our  august  sovereigns,  the  People,  and  discuss  with  them  plainly 
whether  they  govern  well.  Two  antagonistic  forces  compose  society,  the  one 
called  the  lower  or  laboring  or  democratic  or  non-capital  class,  and»the  other 
the  capitalist  or  aristocratic  class.  In  generalizing  two  forces  of  such  breadth 
and  scope  of  operation,  no  name  that,  could  be  given  them  would  be  just  to 
each  of  their  details.  As  when  liberty  and  law,  or  science  and  religion,  or  the 
latter  and  philosophy  are  arrayed  as  antagonistic  social  and  intellectual  forces, 
virtues  and  crimes  attach  to  each ;  truth  and  error  lie  involved  in  both.  As  the 
world  of  force  consists  of  antagonistic  forces,  so  the  world  of  truth  consists  of 
the  antagonistic  intellectual  conceptions  of  these  forces,  which  we  call  ideas. 
A  truth  which  purports  to  generalize  many  facts  into  one  generic  fact  or  law, 
is  never  presented  with  complete  accuracy,  until  the  truth  that  contradicts  it 
is  set  down  beside  it;  as  the  Roman  conqueror,  returning  in  triumph,  was  fol- 
lowed by  two  heralds,  one  of  whom  proclamed  him  immortal,  and  the  other 
warned  him  that  he  would  die.  Neither  told  him  the  whole  truth,  but  the  two 
combined,  did. 

In  the  perpetual  conflict  between  aristocracy  and  communism,  each  has  at 
times  been  religious  or  irreligious,  useful  or  despicable,  sane  or  diseased.  No 
one  phase  of  either  is  responsible  for  the  sins  or  deserving  of  the  merit  of  any 
other. 

Communism,  or  the  doctrine  that  all  men  should  enjoy  all,  or  nearly  all  things 
in  common,  is  the  theory  of  employing  the  aggn^ate  power  of  the  mass  to  pro- 


62  Responsible  Government. 

mote  the  interest  of  the  individual.  It  antagonizes  individualism,  which  is  the 
theory  that  the  interests  of  all  are  best  promoted  when  each  one  promotes  his  own. 
All  private  property,  so  far  as  it  is  protected  by  law,  rests  upon  communism  in 
one  sense,  since  what  we  call  the  protection  of  the  law  consists  in  the  right  of 
the  owner  of  property  to  call  upon  all  citizens  to  protect  him  in  its  enjoyment. 
This  right  to  the  services  of  his  fellow  men  is  the  essence  of  communism. 
Communism  would  use  the  many  to  benefit  each.  Individualism  leaves  each 
to  benefit,  himself,  believing  that  he  thereby  most  benefits  the  many.  Com- 
munism aims  at  Altroism  or  Benevolence.  Individualism  culminates  in  Egotism. 
Communism  is  mainly  a  creed,  i.  e.  the  assertion  of  a  theory.  Individualism 
is  the  all  controlling  fact  that  governs  the  business  of  life,  and  sways  the  springs 
and  forces  of  human  nature.  Communism  in  government  believes  in  numerical 
majorities,  and  would  §ee  no  better  mode  of  deciding  whether  God  exists,  than 
by  a  vote  of  "  eight  to  seven."  Individualism  may  condescend  to  buy  or  use 
majorities,  but  it  can  not  believe  in  them.  It  believes  in  genius,  destiny,  rank, 
headship,  blood,  property,,  achievement,  any  machinery  by  which  to  bring  the 
many  incompetent  under  the  guidance  and  energy  of  the  competent  few. 

Communism,  in  the  church,  subordinates  pulpit  to  pews;  inspiration  to  the 
pay-roll ;  elects  its  own  preacher,  tries  him  for  his  offenses  on  its  own  stand- 
ard, and  if  he  merely  sins  against.  God,  extends  to  him  the  forgiveness — of  the 
congregation.  But.  if  he  sins  against  the  congregation,  expels  him.  Individu- 
alism in  religion  asserts  its  own  intuitions  or  inspirations,  subordinates  many  to 
one,  and  makes  that  one  a  Paul,  a  pope  or  a  Luther.  Business  has  generally 
been  left  to  Individualism.  Worship  has  tended  toward  Communism.  Both 
have  their  sphere.  Wisdom  lies  in  the  perpetual  balance  of  each  against  the 
•ther. 

A  thraad  of  communism  runs  through  history,  from  Plato  and  the  building 
of  the  Jewish  temple  to  the  Paris  rebellion  and  the  Indiana  divorce  law.  But 
the  world  has  been  ruled  and  run  by  its  Caesars  and  Bonapartes — its  men  of 
business,  and  not  by  its  St..  Simons  and  Fouriers.  The  Caesars  have  been  coarse 
in  the  gratification  of  their  passions,  but  chaste  in  the  enunciation  of  their 
theories.  The  communistic  theorist,  isolated  through  illrepute  or  poverty,  has 
lived  the  life  of  an  eremite  while  advocating  license,  thus  sustaining  the  in- 
conveniences of  virtue  and  the  odium  of  vice.  Caesarism,  when  not  engaged  in 
a  debauch,  advocates  purity,  at  least  for  others.  Communism  dwells  under  a 
cloud  of  suspicious  repute,  on  an  actual  average  of  licentiousness  which  would 
cut  no  figure  were  its  creed  sound.  Perhaps  this  is  because  Caesarism  has  ruled  the 
world,  while  communism  has  only  speculated  on  how  it  should  be  ruled.  All 
governments  vibrate  between  these  two  forces.  But  the  governments  and 
people  of  the  United  States  of  America  tend  more  visibly  than  any  other  in 
modern  times  toward  communism.  DeTocqueville  observed  this  forty  years  ago 
when  he  wrote  of  the  despotism  of  public  opinion,  and  the  power  which  society 
asserts  in  America  to  compel  each  individual  to  agree  with  the  mass. 

Our  Declaration  of  Independence  is  a  gospel  of  communism.  Its  utterance 
"  all  men  are  created  equal "  is  a  half  truth,  the  other  half  of  which  is  "  all  men 
are  created  unequal"  and  i4p  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  a  capacity  to 


Theories  of  Equality.  63 

serve  each  other  proportionate  to  their  inequality.  The  Declaration  does  not, 
as  some  suppose,  assert  the  equality  of  men  as  to  their  political  rights.  The 
rights  to  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  are  not  political,  but 
natural  rights.  The  right  to  vote,  hold  office,  enjoy  a  franchise,  etc.,  would  be 
political  rights.  If  the  right  to  the  pursuit  of  happiness  is  inalienable,  then  no 
man  can  at  any  time  be  checked  in  doing  that  which  he  thinks  will  make  him 
happy.  If  liberty  is  inalienable,  no  man  can  be  imprisoned  for  crime.  If  life 
is  inalienable,  no  criminal  can  be  executed.  Men  derive  their  power  of  ex- 
change and  association  from  their  inequalities.  Whatever  would  make  them 
equal  would  destroy  the  race  by  stopping  commerce.  Capital  would  hire 
nobody,  wealth  would  cease  to  have  value  if  each  laborer  possessed  it.  It  is 
because  the  workman  wants,  that  capital  employs,  and  production  goes  on. 
Men  that  can  make  shoes  make  them  for  men  that  c^n  not. .  Men  that  can 
make  laws  make  them  for  men  that  can  not.  Differentiation  of  functions  or 
division  of  labor  is  as  essential  to  the  highest  skill  in  government  as  in  any 
other  art.  If  it  were  possible  in  fact,  as  it  only  is  in  theory,  for  all  men  to 
make  laws,  then  the  laws  which  all  men  make  would  be  as  bungling  as  the 
shoes  which  each  man  might  make. 

No  government  ever  derived  its  power  from  the  consent  of  the  governed. 
Under  all,  the  governed  have  derived  their  power  to  express  their  consent 
from  the  concessions  of  the  governors.  History  opens  with  the  governing 
classes  in  the  saddle,  not  with  a  compact  by  which  they  are  invited  to  ride. 
Governments  begin,  not  in  the  desire  of  the  great  to  protect  the  humble,  but 
in  the  aristocratic  determination  of  the  strong  to  use  the  massed  power  of  the 
muny  for  their  own  aggrandizement. 

In  Plato's  ideal  Republic,  the  government  was  to  be  aristocratic;  only  the. 
educated  \vere  to  make  the  laws,  but  the  soil  and  its  fruits  were  to  be  shared 
equally  by  all.  One  year's  residence  in  the  United  States  would  have  taught 
him  that  if  property,  which  is  inseparable  from  power,  were  equally  shared 
by  all,  the  educated  would  have  no  monopoly  of  law-making.  The  people 
desire  law-makers  who  are  more  fluent  than  themselves,  but  not  such  as  differ 
from  them  in  their  conclusions. 

The  §tate,  says  Plato,  should  set  all  men  at  work.  The  women,  slaves  and 
children  should  be  the  common  property  of  the  State;  forgetting  that  what 
all  men  own,  like  the  sea  or  the  heavens,  may  have  great  utility  or  beauty, 
but  no  value;  it  can  not  be  prized  or  loved.  That  which  can  not  be  mine  I 
will  not  have.  To  share,  to  equalize  property  or  affection  is  to  abolish  it.  In 
its  very  dawn  the  principle  of  communism  was  hostile  to  marriage.  Generally 
associated  with  some  form  of  religious  fanaticism,  it  has  not  been  content  with 
making  property  common  to  all,  but  has  either  established  celibacy,  commu- 
nity of  wives,  or  polygamy.  In  a  few  instances  only  it  has  left  the  marital 
relation  intact. 

The  sect  of  the  Essenes,  according  to  Neander,  were  contemporaneous  with 
the  Sadducees  and  Pharisees.  Their  doctrines  were  identical  with  those  of 
Christ,  though  they  are'nowhere  mentioned  either  by  Jesus  or  by  his  disciples. 
They  were  purists  in  morals,  and  taught  non-res^tance,  celibacy,  prayer,  fast- 


64  Responsible  Government. 

ing,  humility  and  poverty,  and  were  communists  as  respects  property.  Christ's 
own  teachings  concerning  property  were  more  communistic  than  his  followers 
in  later  ages  have  been  willing  to  admit.  In  the  early  church,  all  Christians 
were  communists,  ate  at  a  common  board,  and  in  joining  the  Christian  sect 
poured  all  their  wealth  into  the  common  stock.  The  Carpocratians,  an  early 
christain  sect,  continued  from  the  first  to  the  seventh  century  to  practice  com- 
munity of  goods  and  of  wives.  All  monasticism  has  been  communistic  as  re- 
spects property.  The  clerical  body,  as  well  as  the  various  religious  orders, 
male  and  female,  of  both  the  Greek  and  Roman  Catholic  churches,  are  com- 
munistic bodies  within  themselves,  each  member  rendering  his  whole  sub- 
stance to  the  common  fund  of  the  society,  and  taking  upon  himself  the  vows 
of  poverty,  chastity  and  humility,  i.  e.  that  he  will  have  neither  property,  wife 
nor  will,  but  will  in  a,ll  things  accept  the  provisions  or  the  deprivations  or- 
dained for  him  by  the  common  brotherhood.  In  Catholic  Christianity,  the  high- 
est types  of  religious  growth  are  the  communities,  monks,  nuns,  and  brethren 
of  various  grades.  The  highest  type  of  faith  is  that  which  bends  the  individual 
judgment  of  each  to  the  articles  of  faith  formulated  by  the  General-Commune 
of  all  the  bishops.  Much  of  the  horror  felt  toward  the  Anabaptists  in  an  early 
period,  arose  from  their  communistic  doctrines  concerning  the  equal  right  of 
all  to  the  land.  Accompanying  the  reformation  in  Germany,  there  were  out- 
breaks of  the  Serfs  against  their  Lords,  based  on  the  communistic  doctrine,  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  aiming  at  a  more  equitable  re-distribution  of  the  lands 
of  the  nobility.  Simultaneously  appeared  a  sect  of  Adamites,  who  wore  no 
clothing  and  pronounced  in  favor  of  community  of  the  sexes.  The  phrases 
connected  with  Christianity  indicate  a  communistic  husk  of  origin,  even  where 
the  kernel  has  fallen  out.  Thus  its  members  are  styled  "communicants,"  a 
term  of  analogous  origin  with  communist.  The  highest  act  of  worship  is  "com- 
munion." The  most  thrilling  pulpit  appeals  are  those  which  exalt  the  duty 
of  benevolence  over  that  of  acquisition,  in  a  manner  that  if  acted  upon  would 
convert  the  world  into  a  Christian  commune,  in  which  he  who  should  demand 
one's  cloak,  would  be  kindly  pressed  to  accept  the  loan  of  one's  coat  also. 

There  were  communistic  tendencies  in  Sir  Thomas  More's  Utopia.  Camp- 
anelli's  Civitas  Soils  as  early  as  1623  prefigured  our  modern  eight  hour  laws 
by  a  proposed  law  limiting  hours  of  labor  to  four.  In  John  Beller's  college  of 
industry,  (1696)  the  laborers  were  to  be  luxuriously  provided  for  and  taught 
philosophy  and  the  sciences,  while  the  shareholders  were  to  divide  the  profits. 
All  these  pale  before  the  brilliant  social  dreamer,  whose  imagination  has  exer- 
cised a  more  potent  influence  than  is  acknowledged  over  modern  society. 

Seventy  years  ago  Charles  Fourier  advanced  a  wild  and  fanciful  but  bril- 
liant and  seductive  vision  of  the  future  condition  of  the  world  for  eighty  thous- 
and years.  The  life  of  the  individual,  said  he,  must  be  taken  as  typical  of  the 
life  of  the  race;  the  history  of  other  genera  of  animated  existence,  as  typical 
of  the  history  of  .man.  The  individual  man  is  born,  matures,  declines,  and  dies. 
Other  races  and  genera  appear  when  conditions  are  favorable,  multiply,  cul- 
minate, and  as  conditions  become  adverse,  they  dwindle  and  disappear.  The 
human  race  therefore  has  it^infancy — is  in  it  now.  Is  it  not  like  an  infant, 


Fourier's  theories  of  Progress.  65 

•wholly  occupied  with  gratifying  its  senses  and  supplying  its  animal  wants? 
Only  a  few  of  any  race  or  time  have  spent  their  lives  in  that  which  must  be 
the  mature  employment  of  the  full  grown  mind,  in  high  intellectual  action. 
These.  Fourier  thought,  were  the  philosophers,  statesmen,  scientists,  explorers, 
seers,  poets  and  prophets.  The  average  of  the  race  have  been  infants.  If  the 
race  after  seven  thousand  years  is  still  only  where  the  individual  man  is  at 
seven,  then  a  thousand  years  of  the  world's  life  is  equivalent  to  one  year  in 
that  of  the  individual.  The  race  will  rise  from  infancy  to  manhood  in  a  further 
ten  thousand  years.  As  the  unit  man's  advance  toward  maturity  is  indicated 
by  an  increased  association  with  his  fellows,  a  more  rapid  interchange  of  ser- 
vice and  ideas,  and  a  freer  association  in  labor  and  production,  in  govern- 
ment, in  worship,  and  especially  in  the  marital  relation,  so  the  human  race, 
in  its  advance  toward  maturity,  will  be  characterized  by  the  same  increase 
of  associative  power  and  freedom.  Attractions  become  proportional  to  desti- 
nies, i.  e..  duty  is  largely  measured  by  desire.  The  most  important,  factor  in 
social  science,  he  declared  to  be  the  relation  of  the  sexes.  If  that  were  indis- 
criminate, freedom  of  selection  being  wholly  on  the  side  of  brute  power,  the  result 
was  savageism.  If  it  were  polygamous  and  enslaved,  the  result  would  be  a 
grade  higher — barbarism.  If  it  were  the  enforced  alliance  of  one  man  to  one 
woman,  without  divorce,  it  would  be  civilization,  which  he  defined  as  the  free- 
dom of  man  and  enslavement  of  woman.  The  emancipation  of  woman  would 
require  from  three  to  ten  thousand  years,  and  would  introduce  the  Harmonial 
Period,  when  the  sexual  attraction  would  be  strongest  in  its  power  and  most 
chaste,  and  yet  most  free,  in  its  expression;  when  Christian  marriage  would 
have  passed  away  as  identical  with  woman's  degradation,  and  when,  in  its 
stead,  .attractions  would  be  proportional  to  destinies.  Instead  of  the  isolated 
and  solitary  household,  complex  households  would  .arise.  A  more  chastened 
moral  standard  of  taste  and  a  greater  delicacy  and  refinement  of  temperament 
would  prevent  these  from  becoming  sensual,  as  the  European  and  American 
homes  admit  both  sexes  to  a  larger  freedom,  yet  with  truer  virtue,  than  those 
of  the  more  exclusive  Turks. 

Co-operation  by  means  of  corporations  amd  joint  stock  companies  were  also 
important  factors  in  Fourier's  predictions.  The  first  experiments  towards  the 
Harmonial  Relation  would  come  in  the  form  of  easy  divorce  laws,  co-operative 
communities  which  would  fail  for  lack  of  honesty,  and  premature  attempts  at 
social  freedom  before  human  nature  had  become  sufliciently  refined  to  admit 
of  it.  The  Harmonial  Relation  would  accompany  the  golden  period  of  the 
existence  of  the  human  race,  until  the  whole,  earth  were  filled  with  the  glory 
and  beauty  of  a  fully  developed  manhood,  which  would  be  reached  in  from 
thirty  to  fifty  thousand  years,  after  which  the  race  would  sink  slowly  into 
decay  and  death,  the  very  planet  becoming  physically  desolate. 

While  some  of  Fourier's  vagaries  were  fantastic,  few  philosophers  have 
outlined  more  prophetically  the  social  drift  and  trend  of  the  century  that 
should  follow  them.  Mary  Wolstonecraft  had  previously  asserted  his  doctrine 
in  England.  John  Milton  and  Jeremy  Bentham  had,  so  far  as  divorce  was 
concerned,  inclined  as  liberally  toward  it  as  their  periods  would  admit. 


66  Responsible    Government. 

Both  in  England  and  in  Germany  the  Protestant 'Reformation  grew  largely 
out.  of  a  rebellion  against  the  Roman  doctrines  of  celibacy  of  the  priesthood 
and  an  undivorceable  marriage  tie.  Robert  Owen,  Fourier's  disciple,  em- 
ployed a  large  fortune  in  carrying  out  socialism  in  England.  Robert  Dale 
Owen,  son  of  the  former,  in  Indiana,  introduced  and  secured  the  passage  of 
the  pioneer  divorce  law,  which  has  been  followed  in  other  States,  thus  fulfill- 
ing Fourier's  prediction. 

.Most  of  the  leading  'ndustries  of  the  present  day,  in  manufactures,  trans- 
portation, insurance,  banking,  publishing,  and  the  like,  are  conducted  by  joint 
stock  incorporations  or  financial  "communes,"  in  which  the  share  of  capital 
is  the  integral  unit  considered  in  the  government  of  the  association,  and  their 
owners  count  according  to  their  number  of  shares.  The  theory  of  these  asso- 
ciations is  the  communistic  one  that  there  is  perfect  harmony  of  interests  be- 
tween the  association  as  a  whole  and  its  shareholders,  who,  it  is  assumed,  will 
have  no  individual  interests  which  outweigh  their  interests  as  shareholders. 
But  sometimes  "rings"  are  formed.  The  ring  is  a  clique  of  officers  seeking 
to  make  more  mcMiey  out  of  salaries  or  contracts,  by  combining  against  the 
shareholders,  than  they  can  make  by  acting  in  harmony  with  the  interests  of 
the  whole.  It  is  individualism  fraudulently  using  the  cloak  of  communism 
to  compass  its  eads. 

Trade  requires  too  much  shrewdness,  and  agriculture  too  much  toil,  to  be 
carried  on  by  the  trustees  of  corporations.  These,  therefore,  and  the  mechanic 
arts  and  professions,  are  left  to  individuals.  The  individual  teaches,  but  the 
commune,  called  a  college,  gives  permanency  to  his  classes.  The  individual 
preaches,  but  the  ecclesiastical  commune,  called  a  congregation,  or  conference, 
or  synod,  or  council,  or  its  representative,  a  bishop,  controls  his  appointment. 
In  art,  invention,  authorship,  oratory,  and  all  things  requiring  genius,  the 
individual  still  reigns.  In  organization,  and  all  things  requiring  co-operation 
and  numerical  influence,  the  commune  is  powerful. 

Mormonism  is  an  oligarchic  or  monarchic  commune,  based  on  polygamic 
fanaticism  and  co-operation  in  industry.  The  Shaker  communities  are  com- 
munes, not  unlike  the  Essenes,  bused  on  a  stoical  system  of  abstinence,  self- 
denial,  celibacy,  and  co-operation  in  industry.  Russia  is  full  of  communistic 
villages.  The  free-love  communities  at  Oneida  and  elsewhere  are  avowedly 
intended  to  realize  the  dream  of  Fourier,  as  respects  property,  labor,  and  the 
complex  household.  Democracy  itself  is  a  political  commune  as  to  all  who 
participate  in  the  right  of  suffrage,  and  there  is  a  communistic  flavor  to  the 
name  adopted  by  many  of  our  States,  viz:  "commonwealth." 

At  least  a  half  century  of  democratic  government  was  required  to  develop  its 
proper  fruits.  We  began  our  national  existence  under  the  influence  of  English 
and  aristocratic  manners,  habits  and  traditions.  We  announced  democratic 
theories  in  1776,  but  continued  aristocratic  practices,  which  in  some  degree  pre- 
served us  from  their  immediate  effect.  We  continued  to  require  property  quali- 
fications for  voters,  jurors  and  officeholders,  for  half  a  century.  We  continued 
the  tradition  that  only  men  able  to  live  without  office  should  be  elected  to  office; 
that  men  should  not  seek  office,  for  its  emoluments,  but  should  wait  for  the  office 


National  Drift  toward  a  Consolidated  Commune.         67 

to  seek  them;  that  judges  should  be*  appointed  by  the  Governor  and  Senate; 
tlinr  power  should  not  be  wielded  by  the  people  directly,  but  through  their  rep- 
resentative?, and  that  statesmanship,  diplomacy  and  government  were  profes- 
sions requiring  skill.  These  aristocratic  traditions  received  their  first  severe 
blow  under  Andrew  Jackson,  and  have  been  steadily  waning  since.  We  have 
become  enamored  of  the  supposed  principle  that  all  men  know  more^han  one 
man.  We  have  crushed  the  individualism  and  aristocratic  tendencies  whvch 
gave  dignity  to  the  early  administrations.  In  the  formation  of  our  govern- 
ment even  the  three  little  counties  on  the  Delaware  would  not  be  ruled  by 
their  parent  commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  but  must,  set  up  as  a  State  by 
themselves.  First,  the  thirteen  colonies  formed  a  league  of  friendship;  then 
a  confederation,  having  a  central  agency  for  suggestion  and  debate,  but  with- 
out either  executive,  legislative  or  judicial  powers;  then  a  union  of  States,  in 
which  the  central  government  debated  for  eighty  years  with  State's  rights 
whether  it  were  a  union  of  States  or  a  state  of  union — or  as  the  Germans  say, 
Staaffn-bund  or  a  bundestaat;  then,  by  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  we  merged  the 
Federal  Union  into  a  consolidated  nation,  which  is  now  the  sole  and  supreme 
judge,  in  fact,  of  the  .extent  of  the  rights  it  will  leave  to  the  several  States. 
The  motto  of  the  Republic  now  is,  "No  State  shall,"  etc.  Constitutional  forms 
are  entirely  competent  to  say  that  no  State  shall  prevent,  a  woman  from  voting, 
or  shall  maintain  an  indissoluble  marriage  or  the  collection  of  debt. 

Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill,  in  England,  so  justly  noted  for  his  contempt  for  all 
the  conservative  forces  of  society,  like  Fourier,  combined  the  theory  that  land 
should  be  the  common  property  of  all,  with  the  theory  that  whenever  a  woman 
wearied  of  her  former  husband  she  should  be  allowed  a  change  of  venue  to 
another.  He,  therefore,  consented  to  attract  to  himself  the  wife  of  a  relatively 
insipid  Christian  gentleman  of  good  character,  and  thus  to  prove  that  attrac- 
tion* are  proportional  to  destinies.  In  America,  five  years  ago,  there  were 
three  national  associations  for  the  emancipation  of  woman.  Their  three  pre- 
sidents, respectively,  were  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  Theodore  Tiltpn,  and  Victoria 
C.  Woodhull.  The  coincidence  is  its  own  comment. 

We  have  erideavored  to  grasp  the  genius  of  communism,  and  to  state  its 
spirit  and  aims  in  the  language  of  its  more  intelligent  advocates,  and  hence 
in  their  most  favorable  aspect.  For  we  regard  it  as  a  necessary  and  salutary 
force  in  society,  when  kept  within  proper  limits  by  antagonistic  forces.  Let 
ns  now  speak  of  its  methods. 

The  effort  to  establish  a  perfect  social  commune,  or  association  founded  on 
the  idea  of  the  free  participation  of  all  in-the  fruits  of  its  common  labors,  has 
seldom  or  never  succeeded,  except  where  its  members  have  been  held  in  union 
by  a  powerful  religious  enthusiasm.  But  large  associations  have  been  formed 
whose  aims  were  partially  communistic,  upon  less  effective  bases.  Among 
these  are  free-masonry,  and  kindred  orders,  trades  unions,  guild-;.  Free- 
masonry is  the  guild  or  trades  union  sublimated  and  idealized.  It  began  as  a 
guild  of  architects  and  builders,  in  the  feudal  epoch, — say  from  the  ninth  to 
the  fourteenth  centuries, — and  when  the  attractions  of  its  principles  caused 
nobles  and  gentlemen  to  seek  admission  to  its  order,  it  retained  the- symbols 


68  Responsible   Government. 

without  the  substance  of  its  early  functions.  Doubtless,  wherever  large  masses 
of  workingnren  have  been  on  hire  together  for  wages,  they  have  combined  for 
the  common  struggle  against,  the  demands  of  employers,  and  for  common  aid 
if  employment  failed.  Our  modern  trades  unions  now  number  on«  million 
persons,  supporting  probably  six  millions  of  people  in  Great  Britain,  have 
upward*  of  half  a  million  in  France,  and  proportional  strength  throughout 
Europe.  In  Italy  they  were  an  important  revolutionary  factor  in  aiding  Gari- 
baldi to  overthrow  the  temporal  power  of  the  Pope  and  establish  the  kingdom 
of  Italy.  Everywhere  they  are  anti-papal,  and  very  largely  secularist.  In 
America  are  at  least  250,000  members  of  trades  unions.  In  Chicago,  at  the 
last  city  election,  the  Socialists  cast  11.000  votes;  as  if  a  city  government  in 
which  but  one  in  six  of  the  voters  are  tax-payers  were  not  sufficiently  social- 
istic! 

Most  of  the  unionists  throughout  the  world  are  affiliated  with  the  two 
international  associations,  one  aiming  to  control  their  political  action,  and  the 
other  to  render  material  aid.  All  of  them  are  Fourierites  in  their  doctrines  as 
to  capital,  as  the  following  statement  from  their  declaration  at  Nuremburg,  in 
1868,  will  show: 

All  new  inventions  and  discoveries,  instead  of  redounding,  as  now,  to  the  benefit 
of  the  few  and  to  the  -enslaving  of  the,  many,  must  be  converted  into  means  of  re- 
ducing the  toils  of  all,  of  beautifying  life,  and  ennobling  humanity.  All  the  great, 
indispensable  means  of  existence,  as  lands,  mines,  machines,  and  means  of  communi- 
cation, must  be  the  common  property  of  all,  and  mtist  be  made  so  gradually.  Nothing 
can  reasonably  be  private  property,  but  the  product  of  labor — one's  own  labor. 

The  unions  have  disciplined,  educated  and  protected  the  workingmen,  and 
are  of  great  service  to  them  in  their  conflicts  with  capital.  Unquestionably 
the  wages  classes  have  received  far  more  pay  in  the  aggregate,  and  maintained 
a  condition  of  greater  freedom  by  means  of  them.  Yet,  as  their  sole  bond  of 
union  is  the  lack  of  capital  in  their  members,  they  are  founded  on  incapacity 
to  save  money,  as  their  corner  stone.  Their  financial  theories  are  vagaries  of 
the  vote-yourself-a-farm-and-a-mule  order,  and  will  be  until  men  who  can  save 
money  are  admitted  to  their  councils. 

Among  these  proletarian  or  wages-working  classes  in  England,  no  form  of 
communism  is  more  significant  than  the  creed  of  the  Land  Tenure  Reform 
Association,  which  was  given  a  prominence  greater  than  its  limited  following 
deserves,  by  the  fact  that  the  late  John  Stuart  Mill  was  its  president  and 
champion.  This  association  holds  that  land  derives  its  value,  not  in  any  con- 
siderable degree  from  the  labor  or  capital  expended  on  it  by  its  possessor,  but 
from  the  aggregate  movements  of  society.  The  selling  value  of  land  is  simply 
the  principal  on  which  the  rent  it  will  bring  would  pay  the  interest,  i.  e.,  the 
Value  of  land  is  arrived  at  by  capitalizing  its  rental.  Its  rent  is  such  deduc- 
tion from  the  gi-oss  returns  received  for  the  products  of  the  labor  of  its  tenant, 
as  the  tenant  is  willing  to  make  for  its  use.  Hence  all  values  of  land  are 
deductions  from  the  earnings  of  labor.  The  sum  which  he  Is  thus  willing  to 
deduct  depends  on  the  number  of  uses  that  compete  for  its  possession.  This, 
in  turn,  depends  upon  the  nearness  of  the  consumer,  if  it  is  used  for  produc- 
tion, or  upon  the  nearness  of  materials,  if  it  is  used  for  manufacture,  or  upon 


Communistic  TJieory  applied  to  Railways.  69 

the  nearness  of  customers,  if  it  is  used  for  purposes  of  exchange.  All  these, 
in  turn,  depend  upon  the  aggregate  societary  movement,  including,  often,  not 
only  the  commerce,  manufactures,  agriculture,  and  means  of  transportation  of 
the  country  in  which  the  land  is  situated,  but  also  those  in  other  countries 
interchanging  products  with  that  of  the  land^in  question.  This  societary 
movement  makes  the  whole  difference  between  the  value  of  a  vacant  lot  on 
Broadway  and  of  one  in  the  Sahara  desert.  Perhaps  society  ought  to  have 
some  interest  in  the  values  which  it  thus  creates,  but  it  is  difficult  to  conceive 
how  such  values  can  be  distributed  among  their  involuntary  authors,  who  may 
be  residents  of  foreign  and  even  antipodal  lands,  without  bringing  to  a  sudden 
collapse  that  very  societary  movement  through  whieh  these  values  arise. 

In  America,  where  we  have  perfect  free  trade  in  land,  and  only  the  means 
of  transportation  over  it  are  the  subjects  of  monopoly,  the  same  communistic 
tendencies  exist  to  regard  railways,  canals  and  grain  marts  as  nie  common 
property  of  the  people,  as  are  manifested  in  England  to  "dis-establish"  the 
private  title  of  the  nobility  and  gentry  to  land.  Our  railway  reformers  de- 
clare the  railways  to  be  public  highways,  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  sanctions  the  power  of  State  Legislatures  to  prescribe  schedule  rates  of 
freight  and  fare,  and  the  rates  at  which  grain  warehouses,  built  by  private 
capital,  without,  any  exercise  of  eminent  domain  or  of  any  legislative  fran- 
chise, shall  store  grain.  Of  course,  American  railway  properties,  like  English 
lands,  derive  their  value  largely  from  the  aggregate  movements  of  society. 
But  what  kind  of  property  does  not?  Even  personal  property  derives  its  value 
from  its  vicinity  to  a  customer  who  desires  to  use  it.  Of  course,  one  portion 
of  the  public  have  an  interest,  in  having  grain  stored  at  reasonable  rates,  an- 
other portion  has  an  interest  in  its  storage  at  high  rates;  but  no  other  or 
greater  than  they  have  in  the  cases  of  all  other  commodities.  Thus,  wherever 
monopoly  is  oppressive,  human  nature  takes  refuge  in  socialism.  The  few 
successful  experiments  in  co-operative  stores  at  Rochd.-ile  and  other  points  in 
England,  and  the  co-operative  banks  in  Germany,  and  building,  and  loan,  and 
insurance  associations  everywhere,  are  varied  but  familiar  illustrations  of  the 
increasing  tendency  toward  purely  financial  and  industrial  communism. 

The  theory  of  the  expanding  availability  and  power  that  co-operation  may 
develop,  is  that  the  sole  function  which  capital  performs  in  business  is  to  feed, 
clothe  and  supply  the  destitute  laborer  until  returns  can  be  received  for  the 
sale  of  the  product  of  his  labor — that  the  sole  function  of  ca'pital,  therefore,  is 
to  cause  laborers  to  co-operate;  that  this  capital  is  ordinarily  only  credit  ob- 
tained at  the  bank  or  elsewhere,  either  through  the  known  solvency  of  the 
employer  or  by  the  deposit  of  the  promises  of  purchasers  to  pay  at  some  future 
time  for  the  product  of  the  employee's  labor;  that  if  the  co-operation  of  the 
laborers  could  be  maintained  without  capital,  it  would  itself  command  the 
credit,  which  would  be  a  sufficient  substitute  for  the  capital.  All  this,  how- 
ever, involves  a  greater  average  trustworthiness  than  wages  workers  have 
hitherto  usually  possessed.  Indeed,  the  chief  source  of  calamity  connected 
with  all  communistic  associations  is,  that  the  amount  of  trust  required  by  their 


70  Responsible   Government. 

inherent  principle  of  organization  renders  them  vicious  means  of  imposing  on 
the  unwary  and  impoverishing  the  confiding. 

The  secluded  and  private  home  is  more  expensive  and  less  socially  attract- 
ive than  something  like  the  complex  household  suggested  by  Fourier  would  be, 
if  the  latter  were  not,  at  war  with  the  fidelities  and  convictions  which  preserve 
the  purity  of  the  family.  .Yet,  the  drift  of  mankind,  during  the  past  century, 
has  been  towards  the  partial  realization  of  the  complex  household,  as  for  in- 
stance in  hotel  life  and  at  the  watering  places.  Perhaps  this  progress  is 
making  quite  as  rapidly  as  the  best  interests  of  society  admit. 

Is  human  progress  from  henceforth  to  consist  in  an  increase  in  this  power 
of  association,  until  it  shall  work  a  general  relaxation  in  the  degree  of  individ- 
ualism and  exclusiveness,  which  have  heretofore  seemed  inseparable  adjuncts 
of  progress,  property  and  affection  ?  Is  the  tendency  to  use  in  common  large 
masses  of  property,  to  increase  until  associated  masses,  and  finally  the  associated 
mass  shall  own  the  railroads,  the  mines,  the  manufactories  and  the  land;  until 
private  individuals  shall  own,  and  shall  desire  to  own,  only  the  passing  pro- 
duct of  their  labor?  Is  this  an  absolute  tendency  toward  socialism,  or  is  it 
only  one  of  two  antagonistic  tendencies,  and  is  the  drift  toward  individualism 
as  marked  in  other  directions  as  that  toward  socialism  is  in  those  we  have 
named? 

If  the  latter  be  true  in  this  country,  then  simultaneously  wfth  this  increase 
of  socialism  there  would  be  growing  up,  extending  and  consolidating  in  per- 
manence and  power,  a  visible  American  aristocracy,  for  only  an  aristocracy 
of  some  kind  can  make  head  against  the  inherent  tendencies  of  a  government 
by  the  non-capitalist  class  toward  communism. 

Would  such  a  consummation  be  one  to  be  dreaded  or  desired?  On  this 
point  there  is -a  vast  amount  of  misconception  and  of  communistic  opinion 
throughout  the  great  masses  of  the  American  people,  owing  to  the  fact,  that 
while  all  classes  of  society  are  pretty  well  grounded  in  the  communistic  theo- 
ries of  Jesus  concerning  the  effect  of  wealth,  comparatively  very  few  look  upon 
the  subject  of  (he  accumulation  of  large  fortunes  in  single  hands  from  a  purely 
economical  aspect.  No  mistake  in  political  economy  can  be  more  wretchedly 
stupid  than  to  suppo-e  that  the  welfare  of  society  would  be  promoted  by  the 
dividing  up  of  large  fortunes  or  even  by  the  diminution  of  the  largest  fortunes; 
and  yet  so  commonly  is  this  tenet  held  that  not  only  those  who  have  never 
amassed  any  large  fortunes,  or  any  fortunes  whatever,  but  nearly  every  per- 
son we  have  met  among  those  who  have,  hold  almost  without  exception  that  it 
would  undoubtedly  be  better  for  mankind,  and  the  most  benevolent,  act  the 
owner  of  a  fortune  could  perform  would  be  to  divide  it  up  among  the  poor. 
This  is  because  few  persons  trace  out  the  large  fortune  even  into  its  invest- 
ments, still  less  in  its  economical  effects.  But  if  there  were  an  atom  of  truth 
in  this  monstrous  error,  the  robbery  of  the  rich  would  be  the  sacred  duty  of  the 
poor.  But  the  fact  is  that  no  matter  what  the  religion  of  which  such  a  theory 
of  property  may  form  an  integral  part,  it  is  so  false  that  only  its  contemptible- 
ness  can  rescue  it  from  being  criminal. 


The  Economy  of  Large  Fortunes.  71 

If  the  owner  of  a  cart  and  yoke  of  oxen,  with  which  he  is  engaged  in  earn- 
ing his  living,  were  approached  with  the  argument  that  he  ought  to  cut  up  his 
cart  for  firewood  and  kilf  and  divide  up  his  yoke  of  oxen  for  the  food  of  the 
poor  families  of  his  neighborhood,  he  would  roar  with  laughter  at  the  absurdity 
of  the  proposition  and  would  instantly  point  out  how  such  a  use  of  his  wealth 
would  create  more  want  than  it  would  relieve;  by  stopping  the  productive  labor 
in  which  he  was  engaged  to  enable  idlers  to  consume  the  capital  with  which  it 
was  being  conducted.  But  the  folly  of  the  destruction  or  dividing  up  and  con- 
sumption of  capital  so  small  as  this,  is  only  a  little  more  evident,  and  not  in  any 
degree  more  demonstrable  to  the  man  who  gives  the  subject  the  least  thought, 
than  would  be  the  like  sub-division  and  distribution  of  large  capitals.  Take 
for  instance  the  $150,000,000  and  upwards  of  capital  owned  by  William  B. 
r.  Mr.  Astor's  ambition  as  a  capitalist  naturally  is,  so  to  manage  this 
capital  as  to  combine  the  greatest  security  in  its  investment  wifti  the  largest 
permanent  income,  therefore  the  first  requisite  to  this  end  is  to  keep  it  always 
in  use  and  productive.  But  every  productive  use  he  can  make  of  it  is  a  loan 
in  sume  form,  of  its  use,  to  some  class  of  persons  who  lack  capital.  So  far  as 
it  c  insists  of  real  estate,  buildings  adapted  to  the  wants  of  society  must  be 
erected  and  maintained  thereon  and  kept  rented,  and  this  is  a  loan  of  shelter 
to  the  homeless.  The  larger  the  fortune  the  Ipss  will  be  the  time  its  possessor 
will  have  to  find  tenants,  and  while  an  owner  of  but  few  houses  might,  by  in- 
vestiiiir  his  own  time,  rent  them  at  high  prices  and  on  terms  disadvantageous 
to  the  tenant,  the  owner  of  a  large  estate  can  only  keep  his  buildings  tenanted 
by  keeping  them  more  desirable  than  any  others  to  be  had  for  the  same  rent, 
and  by  renting  them  at  lower  rates  than  equally  desirable  premises  can  else- 
where be  had.  We  find  this  to  be  the  universal  reputation  borne  by  the  Astor 
investments  in  New  York  city ;  all  tenants  preferring  to  hire  of  Astor  and 
other  similar  proprietors  of  vast  estates,  and  carefully  avoiding  the  hiring  of 
a  landlord  who  owns  but  one  house,  provided  a  choice  between  the  two  is  open 
bo  the  tenant.  Every  such  tenant  informs  you  exactly  what  you'would  infer 
from  a  slight  reflection,  especially  if  your  judgment  was  guided  to  its  conclu- 
sion by  the  very  simple  principle  in  political  economy,  viz.,  that  the  smaller 
the  quantity  of  time  which  a  landlord  can  give  to  his  investment,  the  lower 
the  raie  at  which  he  will  be  compelled  to  make  it,  and  that  the  capital  of  a  large 
capitalist  never  averages  but  a  small  fraction  of  the  ratio  of  interest  per  cent. 
that  is  expected  by  a  small  capitalist.  Of  course  if  the  Astor  estate  were  dis- 
tributed iimong  as  many  owners  as  there  are  tenants,  there  would  be  a  general 
advance  of  rents  among  all  the  tenants,  and  the  charity  would  thus  result  in 
an  immediate  tax  upon  industry  to  sustain  idleness. 

A.  T.  Stcwari.  by  selling  ten  times  the  quantity  of  goods  that  had  previously 
been  so  d  by  one  merchant,  was  enabled  to  reduce  by  nearly  nine-tenths  the 
fractions  of  cost  which  had  previously  entered  into  the  selling  price  of  goods  to 
pay  for  store  rent,  service  of  salesmen  and  the  like.  He  might  therefore  take 
off  four-tenths  of  the  difference  between  the  buying  and  selling  price,  and  still 
make  a  profit  five  times  greater,  on  his  own  time,  than  his  brother  merchants. 
Thus  in  no  mode  would  his  capital  so  speedily,  evenly  and  judiciously  divide 


72  Responsible   Government. 

itself  up  among  the  poor,  in  the  form  of  reduced  prices  on  goods,  as  by  leaving 
him  to  manage  it  in  the  manner  which  would  most  promote  his  own  wealth. 
The  massive  stores,  shops,  factories  and  other  appliances  which  he  erected  are 
virtually  the  property  of  mankind  in  their  essential  utilities.  That  which  Mr. 
Stewart  substracted  from  all  his  wealth  as  the  net  compensation  for  superin- 
tending its  amassments,  consisted  of  the  food  he  ate  and  the  clothes  he  wore; 
probably  not  exceeding  $1000  a  year.  Even  his  marble  palace  and  paintings 
are  the  property  of  the  world  as  truly  as  is  the  shell  that  encases  the  coral 
insect  after  the  worker  has  shrivelled  in  death.  When  Commodore  Vanderbilt 
determined,  for  the  better  preservation  of  the  estate  he  had  amassed,  to  practice 
the  English  system  of  primogeniture  by  leaving  nearly  his  entire  wealth  to 
his  eldest  son,  he  taxed  the  world  with  the  expenses  of  one  system  of  manage- 
ment only  in  preference  to  five  or  six.  If  subjected  to  competition,  the  cost 
to  which  William  H.  Vanderbilt  can,  if  necessary,  reduce  the  expense  of  man- 
agement of  $200,000,000  of  capital  invested  in  railways  will  be  the  sum  re- 
quired for  the  support  of  his  one  family.  If  not  subjected  to  competition,  it 
must  be  because  no  other  capitalists  believe  they  could  loan  to  the  public  an 
equal  amount  of  capital,  or  the  capital  necessary  to  compete  with  him,  at  so 
low  a  rate  of  profit  as  he  is  doing.  In  either  case  the  public  are  being  served 
at  the  lowest  possible  rates. 

The  secondary  economies  growing  out  of  the  "luxurious  living"  which  is 
attributed  to  the  possessors  of  large  wealth  is  generally  very  little  investi- 
gated or  understood  by  the  "sell  all  thou  hast  and  give  to  the  poor"  school  of 
economists.  All  luxury  is  involuntary  but  highly  economical  charity,  simply 
because  all  the  articles  of  luxury,  not  being  articles  of  necessity  or  indispensa- 
ble, are  not  produced  by  the  competent  or  well  conditioned  class  any  where, 
but  by  the  extremely  and  precariously  poor,  who,  but  for  luxurious  living,  would 
be  crowded  out  of  existence.  Food,  shelter,  clothing  and  hardware  being 
necessities  of  life,  are  in  such  ready  demand  at  remunerative  returns,  that  the 
well  to  do  business  classes  in  all  parts  of  the  world  who  can  select  the  more 
profitable  occupations,  everywhere  are  engaged  in  furnishing  them.  But  laces 
are  knit,  and  diamonds  are  cut  by  the  poorest  classes  of  artizans  in  Paris. 
Pearls  are  hunted  by  the  humblest  fishermen  of  Ceylon.  Furs  are  gathei-ed  by 
Kamtschatkans  and  Esquimaux  on  the  frontiers  of  polar  cold,  where  humble 
life  struggles  feebly  against  the  eternal  chill.  Diamonds  are  sought  for  by  the 
hungry  beggars  in  the  mountains  of  Peru  and  Hindoostan.  Even  gold  and  sil- 
ver hunting  are  the  resourse  of  the  shiftless  and  adventurous  class,  while  coal 
and  iron  are  mined  by  wealthy  corporations  that,  endure  for  scores  of  years 
and  even  centuries.  Raw  silks  are  the  products  of  the  labors  of  the  almond 
eyed  Mongols,  who  work  at  a  penny  a  day,  and  the  Hindoos,  whom  the  most  un- 
tiring industry  fails  to  rescue  from  famine.  The  weavers  of  silk  are  nearly 
their  counterparts  in  France.  The  gra.pes  for  the  finest  wines  are  cultivated 
by  the  peasantry  skirting  the  bases  of  the  Alps  and  Appenines,  and  the 
roses  from  which  the  finest  genuine  perfumes  are  extracted  Hoom  on  the 
blood-stained  and  tax-drained  fields  of  Albania  and  Bulgaria,  where  for  cen- 
turies the  cross  has  maintained  its  unequal  contest  with  the  crescent.  So,  trav- 


TJie  Economy  of  Rank  and  Honor.  73 

ersing  the  entire  range  of  luxuries  indulged  in  by  the  very  rich,  we  find  they 
have  sent  relief  in  some  degree  and  at  some  distant  point  to  the  exceptionally 
poor.  The  real  waste  and  "loss  to  society  diminishes  as  we  ascend,  and  dwell- 
ings, furniture,  clothing,  all  the  incidents  of  life,  become  more  durable  in  pro- 
portion to  the  substantialness  and  elegance  with  which  they  are  constructed. 
The  least  costly  element  present  at  a  royal  wedding  are  the  Queen's  dia- 
monds, for  the  wear  of  them  for  a  thousand  years  would  detract  nothing  from 
their  weight,  brilliancy  or  value.  The  expenditure  incurred  for  them  was 
not  a  consumption  or  loss  of  wealth,  but  a  mere  investment,  which  the  nearest 
jeweller  will  cash  on  demand  as  a  banker  would  a  note.  They  are  not  the 
subject  of  waste.  But  the  boots  and  hat  of  the  outriders  in  livery,  that  ac- 
company her  carriage,  will  wear  out  in  a  few  months.  In  like  manner  the 
least  costly  thing  connected  with  society  is  its  aristocracy,  for  nearly  every 
expenditure  made  by  a  capitalist  is  a  permanent  investment,  while  most  of 
the  expenditures  of  the  peasantry  are  for  objects  which  disappear  in  a  few 
months,  or  at  most  years.  And  of  all  the  elements  of  an  aristocracy,  the  most 
economical  are  ranks  and  honors :  for  they  are  a  species  of  payment  for  public 
service,  which  secures  more  consideration  and  respect  from  the  masses  than 
can  be  purchased  with  money;  are,  therefore,  of  more  value  to  the  possessor 
than  wealth,  and  yet  cost  the  public  treasury  and  the  tax-payers  absolutely 
nothing.  In  our  universities  and  armies  we  retain  and  dispense  ranks,  titles 
and  honors  as  the  reward  of  merit,  and  no  people  are  more  proud  of  them.  It 
would  be  safe  to  say  that  including  political,  scholastic,  military,  legal,  medi- 
cal and  clerical  titles,  we  have  at  least  one  million  of  titled  persons  in  America. 
To  each  of  them  his  title,  whether  it  be  Col.,  Rev.,  Dr.,  A.  B.  or  Hon.,  is  as 
dear  to  him  as  a  very  considerable  share  of  his  fortune.  The  differentiation 
of  society  into  many  grades  and  ranks  is  as  inseparable  to  the  highest  efficiency 
of  the  societary  movement,  as  its  differentiation  into  occupations,  sexes,  sects, 
and  schools  of  opinion. 

The  necessity  of  recognizing  aristocracy  in  all  societies  increases  in  pro- 
portion to  the  inequalities  of  condition  and  development  which  mark  the  social 
life.  It  is  far  greater  in  American  society  to-day  than  it  was  a  century  ago, 
greater  in  the  cities  and  towns  than  in  the  rural  populations,  and  has  always 
been  greater  at  the  south  than  at  the  north  because  the  south  brings  side  by 
side  an  inferior  race  upon  whose  minds  the  rudiments  of  industrial  civilization 
are  barely  dawning,  a  class  of  degenerated  whites  who  know  little  of  politics 
in  the  higher  sense  of  the  term,  and  an  educated  landowning  class  who  have 
been  accustomed  to  look  upon  the  two  former  classes  very  much  as  the  Roman 
patricians  looked  upon  the  plebian  dependents  of  his  gens,  or  as  the  feudal 
baron  protected,  patronized  or  plundered  the  serfs  of  his  clientage  accordingly 
as  they  were  loyal  and  deserving  or  rebellious  and  treacherous.  The  Southern 
States,  from  the  beginning,  developed  their  gentry  and  their  peasantry.  Probably 
either  the  colored  race  must  be  eliminated,  or  the  white  race  must  cease  to 
contain  any  representatives  of  the  ancient  noblesse,  which,  during  the  first  fifty 
years  of  the  republic,  rendered  that  section  the  ruling  one,  before  Southern 
society  can  cease  to  be  aristocratic  in  a  sense  much  more  fundamental  and  de- 


74  Responsible   Government. 

termined  than  most  of  the  people  of  the  North  can  conceive.  The  great  reason 
why  the  weight  of  Federal  despotism  vests  oppressively  on  the  South  is  because 
it  is  the  despotism  of  the  principle  of  democracy  which,  in  the  true  sense 
of  that  word,  the  South  despises,  over  that  of  aristocracy  which  the  South  loves.. 
There  will  never  come  a  ti.ne,  during  the  next  two  hundred  years,  when  it  will 
not  conduce  to  the  best  interests  of  the  South  to  be  governed  by  her  aristocracy 
of  educated  landholders,  rather  than  by  her  democratic  rabble  of  negroes  and 
poor  whites.  The  political  alliance,  therefore,  which  the  Republican  party  of 
the  North  undertook  to  form  with  the  negroes  of  the  South,  who  being  the 
illiterate  mob,  are,  in  the  sense  we  use  the  terms,  the  democratic  party  of  the 
South,  i.  e.  the  party  of  non-taxpayers,  was  illogical  and  could  end  only  in 
misfortune  and  failure.  It  was  as  ill  advised  as  the  alliance  existing  before 
the  war  between  the  Democratic  (Irish)  vote  of  the  North  which  was  largely 
non-taxpaying,  and  the  aristocratic  slaveholding  party  of  the  South. 

The  true  interests  of  both  sections  require  such  a  re-adjustment  of  parties 
as  will  cause  each  State,  county,  town  and  hamlet  to  contain  its  balancing  ele- 
ments, its  two  parties;  instead  of  allowing  whole  towns  and  States  in  one  sec- 
tion of  the  Union  to  swing  into  one  party,  to  be  only  off-set  by  towns  and  States 
voting  solidly  against  them,  a  thousand  miles  away.  The  latter  condition 
tends  as  irresistibly  toward  civil  war,  as  it  did  before  slavery  was  nominally 
abolished. 

No  fear  need  ever  arise  of  any  dangerous  consequence  to  result  from  con- 
flicts between  the  tax-payers  and  non-tax-payers  of  the  same  town,  county  or 
State.  Being  face  to  face  with  each  other  they  will  be  compelled  to  talk  the 
matter  out  and  come  to  an  understanding,  Each  has  certain  rights  in  govern- 
ment, and  in  the  true  analysis  the  interests  of  capital  and  labor  are  harmonious. 
But  that  this  harmony  of  interest  may  appear,  it  is  essential  that  both  be 
heard  through  their  authorized  representatives. 

The  representation  of  capital  in  both  the  Northern"  and  Southern  State 
legislatures  would  supply  a  balance  wheel  in  our  constitution,  which  would 
lessen  the  hatefulness  of  the  Union  to  the  people  of  the  South,  because  the 
Union  would  then  come  to  recognize  those  aspects  in  which  men  are  unequal, 
instead  of  onesidedly  recognizing  only  those  aspects  in  which  they  are  equal. 
So  long  as  capital  punishment  is  practiced  it  is  the  sheerest  folly  to  maintain 
that  all  men  have  an  equal  and  inalisnable  right  to  life.  So  long  as  imprison- 
ment for  crime  prevails  it  is  equally  silly  to  assert  that  the  right  to  liberty  or 
the  pursuit  of  happiness  is  either  equal  or  inalienable.  Human  rights  are 
graded  in  every  State  according  to  the  aggregate  judgment  of  that  State. 
Local  self-government  consists  in  permitting  this  difference  of  judgment  to 
prevail.  They  will  differ  most  widely  where  the  capacity  for  their  right  exer- 
cise is  most  unequally  diffused.  So  far  as  any  system  of  Federal  law  may 
seek  to  break  down  the  aristocratic  distinction  between  the  white  race  and  the 
black  at  the  South,'  it  will  come  into  conflict  with  a  law  as  much  more  irresist- 
ible than  Federal  law,  as  the  law  which  controls  the  circulation  of  the  blood 
is  more  irresistible  than  the  law  which  controls  the  impounding  of  stray  cat- 
tle or  the  sale  of  meats.  Republics  have  the  same  right,  under  the  constitution 


Reconstruction  needed  North  as  well  as  South.  75 

of  the  Unite'l  States,  to  be  aristocratic  that  they  have  to  be  democratic, — to  main- 
tain inequality  in  the  rights  of  citizens  as  to  maintain  equality.  The  consti- 
tion  requires  every  State  to  have  a  republican  form  of  government,  but  does 
not  require  any  State  to  have  a  democratic  form  of  government,  nor  that  its 
social  customs  shall  recognize  social  equality.  In  so  far  as  the  power  of  the 
Federal  Arms  has  been  brought  to  bear  to  convert  the  aristocratic  republics 
of  the  South  into  democratic  republics,  it  has  not  succeeded,  and  never  deserved 
to  succeed.  This  fact  will  continue  to  make  itself  manifest  in  the  social  life 
of  the  Southern  States,  and  it.  is  the  part  of  Northern  statesmen  to  recognize 
the  legitimacy  of  the  aristocratic  principle  in  republics,  i.  e.  of  the  rights  of 
capital  as  against  mere  numbers. 

By  giving  representation  to  capital,  they  can  at  least  erect  a  bulwark 
against  its  further  abolition,  for  the  same  force  of  numbers  that  could  abolish 
slavery  could  abolish  banks,  corporations,  credit,  and  even  distribute  the 
lands  by  a  majority  vote.  The  capital  of  the  North,  which  was  so  freely 
poured  out  to  abolish  slavery,  may  find  that  its  sorcery  hath  raised  a  spirit 
which  will  not  down  at  its  bidding. 

What  South  and  North  both  especially  need,  and  without  which  they  can 
not  long  be  held  back  from  another  civil  war.  is,  that  such  questions  and  poli- 
cies shall  be  brought  before  the  country  as  will  break  up  the  two  sectional  and 
passionate  mobs  called  "parties,"  which  are  now  drifting  us  all  hopelessly 
toward  another  war.  and  shall  compel  a  conflict  in  which  large  masses  of  in- 
fluential men  in  each  section  shall  unite  politically  with  equally  large  masses 
of  influential  men  in  tfee  other. 

Such  a  question  would  be  the  re-organization  of  our  State  governments,  in 
such  manner  as  to  give  capital  or  the  tax-payers  a  distinct  veto  on  the  action 
of  the  non-capitalists,  and  the  re-organization  of  the  National  government,  so 
as  to  render  the  Executive  and  Cabinet  responsible  to  Congress,  and  Congress 
responsible  directly  to  the  people,  which  can  only  be  effected  by  the  system 
of  resignaKle  ministries  and  dissoluble  legislatures  set  forth  in  chapters  I  and 
II  of  this  pamphlet. 

If  it  be  said  that  the  agitation  of  two  such  questions,  and  at  once,  would 
rock  the  fabric  of  our  political  society  to  its  very  centre,  would  divide  the 
upper  classes  of  society  against  the  lower,  the  poor  against  the  rich,  and  the 
property-holding  against  the  non-property-holding,  then  my  answer  will  be, 
BO  much  the  better,  for  only  in  this  way  c.-in  past  issues  be  sealed  up  in  obli- 
vion, the  union  of  the  States  preserved  without  war,  the  Csesaric  despotism  of 
section  over  section  be  ended,  a  new  holocaust  of  a  million  lives  and  a  thousand 
millions  of  treasure  be  averted,  and  the  Republic  lifted  into  a  dignity,  as  to 
its  constitution  and  destiny,  worthy  of  its  dignity  in  point  of  numbers  and 
wealth. 

These  being  the  premises  upon  which  I  venture  to  believe  that  an  appeal 
to  the  American  people  in  behalf  of  the  re-organization  of  our  constitutions, 
both  State  and  National,  should  be  entertained,  it  will  be  perceived  that  I  am 
not  searching  after  Utopian  excellences  merely  to  satisfy  the  cravings  of  an 
aesthetic  imagination.  I  am  not  seeking  to  gild  the  refined  gold,  nor  to  paint 


76  Responsible  Government. 

the  lily,  but  to  avert  an  impending  appeal  to  arms,  which,  without  constitu- 
tional reconstruction  at  the  North  as  well  as  at  the  South,  is  inevitable,  and 
which,  if  it  comes,  while  it  can  not  be  more  unnecessary  or  perhaps  more 
bloody  than  that  through  which  the  country  has  but  recently  passed,  will 
prove  even  more  unfruitful  of  results  that  are  consistent  with  true  republic- 
anism or  with  human  welfare. 

Shall  we  be  told  that  the  war,  by  abolishing  slavery,  has  removed  the 
cause  of  war,  and,  therefore,  that'we  are  secure  against  its  revival?  Thi$ 
argument  has  three  fatal  defects:  First,  that  slavery  is  not,  save  by  the  con- 
tinued maintenance  of  a  degree  of  Federal  intimidation,  which  is  inconsistent 
with  State  freedom,  abolished.  Second,  that  the  class  of  prophets  who  now 
predict  that  there  will  be  no  war  because  slavery  is  abolished,  is  the  same 
which,  prior  to  the  previous  war,  predicted  that  war  could  not  result  from  the 
passionate  treatment  of  the  slavery  question,  because  the  South  would  foresee 
its  abolition  as  the  necessary  consequence  of  war.  As  prophets  they  stand 
impeached,  from  lack  of  familiarity  with  the  Southern  mind.  And,  thirdly, 
the  prophecy  assumes  that  people  never  go  to  war  without  a  good  cause, 
whereas  the  converse  is  true,  that  people  seldom  go  to  war  with  a  good  cause. 

As  regards  the  abolition  of  slavery,  we  have,  it  is  true,  a  constitutional 
amendment,  providing  that  slavery  and  involuntary  servitude,  "  except  in 
punishment  of  crime,"  is  abolished.  But  what  a  Trojan  horse  is  the  exception. 
Each  State  can  define  crime,  and  slavery  in  punishment  of  crime  is  as  lawful 
as  slavery  as  the  consequence  of  race  ever  was.  Moreover,  there  is  no  law  pre- 
venting the  Southern  States  from  excluding  the  blacks  from  holding  office,  for 
although  the  XlVth  amendment  provides  that  no  State  shall  make  any  law 
which  shall  abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  yet  the  courts,  Federal  and  State,  have,  in  an  uninterrupted  score  of 
decisions,  held  that  this  language,  which  occurs  in  a  previous  clause  of  the 
constitution  and  in  the  ordinance  of  1787,  does  not  include  the  "privilege"  of 
holding  office.  It  is  easy  to  sfie  that,  on  the  withdrawal  of  Federal  authority 
from  the  Southern  States,  the  control  of  the  matter  of  slavery  in  them  is  rele- 
gated to  State  control,  and  that  the  Federal  government  is  in  control  of  no 
machinery  for  reversing  the  action  of  the  State,  except  war. 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  was  earnestly  to  be  desired  that  as  soon  as 
possible  after  the  physical  rebellion  was  crushed,  the  intellectual  and  moral 
rebellion  of  the  southern  people  should  also  end.  The  more  sagacious  leaders 
of  the  Republican  party  of  the  North,  viz:  Lincoln,  Seward,  Chase,  the  Blairs, 
Sumner,  Trurubull,  Julian  and  Greeley,  labored  to  this  end,  and  were,  one  by 
one,  crucified  by  the  relentless  bigotry  and  stupidity  of  the  rank  and  file  of 
their  party,  who  looked  upon  every  attempt  to  heal  the  breach  occasioned  by 
the  war,  as  treason  to  the  Republican  party,  and  every  recognition  of  the  right 
of  the  Southern  States  to  that  equality  of  rights  which  the  North  had  fought 
to  maintain  them  in,  as  being  a  defeat  of  the  northern  arms.  The  attitude  of 
the  North  and  South,  which  might,  by  the  prevalence  of  wiser  counsels,  and 
by  passing  on  to  new  issues,  have  been  converted  into  one  of  fraternity,  has 
been,  instead,  congealed  into  one  of  disarmed  neutrality  and  sullen  dislike. 


•The  Perils  £head.  77 

The  peculiar  manipulation  by  which  a  probable  popular  verdict  in  favor  of 
Tilden  was  transformed  into  an  electoral  verdict  in  favor  of  Hayes,  was  not 
cured  by  the  surrender  by  Hayes  of  the  "  Republican  "  cause  in  two  of  the 
States  whose  electoral  votes  were  counted  in  his  favor.  -It  was  looked  upon 
rather  as  the  act  of  the  thief  caught  "with  the  manour"  upon  him,  throwing 
away  that  portion  of  the  plunder  which  was  to  form  the  share  of  his  confeder- 
ates, only  to  facilitate  his  escape  with  the  share  which  he  himself* would  enjoy. 
The  effect  of  this  peculiar  course  of  politics  is,  that  the  issues  which  the  war 
should  have  settled  are  not  settled.  The  success  of  the  Republican  party,  and  the 
revival  of  the  Democratic,  at  each  ensuing  election,  has  rendered  it  necessary 
to  re-open  them,  according  to  that  peculiar  crab-like  genius,  which  pertains 
to  our  system  of  voting,  as  explained  in  chapters  I  and  II,  whereby  we  must, 
of  necessity,  vote  on  past  issues. 

It  is  totally  immaterial  in  which  section,  or  from  what  causes,  or  by  whose 
fault,  or  in  which  political  party,  the  elements  of  thija'  incapacity  for  self- 
government  originate,  so  far  as  its  effect  to  precipitate  th'e  republic  into  disas- 
ter, and  prove  the  incompetency  of  the  aggregated  whole' for  self-government, 
is  concerned.  The  experiment,  of  a  republic  in  America  assumes  that  the 
people,  as  a  whole,  of  both  sections  and  of  both  parties,  are  fit  for  self-govern- 
ment. If  this  assumption  is  false  as  to  half,  it  is  false  in  all.  If  the  North 
could  prove  that  the  South  is  unfit  for  self-government,  the  same  proof  would 
convict  the  North  of  the  same  incapacity;  for,  if  the  South  were  unfit  to  be  a 
partner  in  the  firm,  why  did  the  North  compel  the  continuance  of  the  partner- 
ship? "Mutual  recrimination,  therefore,  like  reciprocal  vilification,  only 
establishes  the  incapacity  of  both  parties. 

The  prospect  before  us  is  far  from  satisfactory.  Great  as  have  been  the 
sacrifices  which  the  people  of  either  section  have  made  in  the  interest  of  what 
they  supposed  would  promote  their  future  welfare,  the  country  now  presents 
every  indication  to  the  calm  and  thoughtful  mind  of  being  once  more  adrift 

in  the  rapids,  tending  downward  toward  another  civil  war.     One  thing  Amer- 

^ 
icans  may  as  well  understand,  bluntly  and  at  the  start.     If  the  American 

people,  as  a  whole,  of  the  North  as  well  as  of  the  South,  have  not,  for  any  rea- 
son whatever,  the  capacity  to  organize  politics  so  as  to  avoid  the  formation 
of  two  sectional  political  parties,  one  of  which  shall  represent  the  "  solid 
South,"  and  the  other  the  "solid  North,"  then  the  American  people  have  not 
the  capacity  for  self-government,  but  out  of  sheer-  passion  and  stolidity  are 
doomed  to  drift  out  of  one  civil  war  into  another,  until  the  very  heart  and  life 
of  republicanism  are  extinguished  in  military  despotism.  The  politics  of  the 
country  can  not  be  run  by  the  solid  Nortli  against  a  solid  South,  from  decade 
to  decade,  without  the  recurrence  of  periodical  civil  wars,  resulting  either  in 
the  establishment  of  permanent  Caesarism  of  one  section  over  the  other,  which 
would  be  an  abolition  of  republican  liberty,  or  in  separation. 

Possibly  we  have  not  the  materials  for  creating  an  aristocracy  after  the 
European  pattern,  in  which  pride  of  inherited  fortune,  honor  and  reputation 
often  outweigh  the  pride  of  personal  character,  achievement  and  ability.  It 
may  be  reserved  for  us  to  demonstrate  that  European  aristocracies  have  very 


78  Responsible   Government. 

crudely  and  imperfectly  represented  the  influence  which  capital  and  culture 
should  have  over  government.  Possibly,  however,  we  are  to  be  always  con- 
fined to  the  weakness  of  a  government  by  the  unskilled.  It  would  be  to  us  a 
new  and  high  ambition  to  seek  to  illustrate  the  machinery  by  which  capital, 
experience  and  culture  may  be  given  their  due  share  in  the  control  of  a  gov- 
ernment, without  recalling  the  ballot  from  any  to  whom  it  has  been  given. 

We  will  n"ot  say  that  ranks  and  titles  are  to  be  created.  Even  in  monarchies 
many  men  of  the  highest,  rank  regard  these  as  baubles  which  could  not  add  to 
their  dignity  or  estimation.  But  it  may  Avell  be  doubted  whether  ranks,  honors 
and  titles  are  not  at  once  the  most  economical,  satisfactory  and  useful  modes 
of  rewarding  public  service  and  giving  distinguished  recognition  to  merit. 
However  this  may  be,  we  do  need  the  habit  of  dignity  which  ranks  and 
titles  have  promoted,  or  our  civilization  itself  will  be  overslaughed  in  vulgarity 
and  smut. 

There  are  essentially  but  two  forms  of  government  in  the  world,  viz:  a 
government  by  the  better  classes,  and  a  government  by  the  worse  classes. 
All  appearances  or  pretenses  either  of  a  government  by  one  man  or  of  a  gov- 
ernment by  all  men,  are  equally  delusive  and  false.  As  lai'ge  a  ratio  of  the 
people  are  employed  in  the  work  of  governing  in  Russia,  which  purports  to 
be  government  by  one,  as  in  the  United  States  of  America,  which  purports  to 
be  a  government  by  all.  True,  in  America  the  people  may  change  their  gov- 
ernors at  stated  intervals,  and  in  Russia  they  can  not.  But  to  change  one's 
governors  -is  not  to  govern.  The  ruler,  whether  he  be  a  monarch  or  a  majority, 
must  represent  either  the  aristocratic  or  the  democratic  class.  The  best  gov- 
ernment will  balance  delicately  between  the  two  antagonistic  influences, 
swinging  wholly  into  the  control  of  neither.  The  aristocratic  class  will  bring 
to  it  wisdom,  integrity,  pride  of  birth,  character  and  fortune,  experience,  con- 
servatism and  the  influences  of  culture,  art,  veneration  for  all  that  is  worth 
preserving  in  the  past,  and  personal  and  official  dignity.  . 

The  democi'atic  classes  will  bring  physical  vigor,  readiness  to  change,  hard- 
ihood, inconstancy,  turbulence  and  revolution.  Athens,  Rome,  Venice,  Ger- 
many, France  and  England  all  laid  the  foundations  of  their  greatness  during 
the  ascendency  of  their  aristocratic  clnss.  Assuming  that  the  experience  of 
nations  justifies  the  doctrine,  that  in  every  government  capital  as  well  as  labor, 
experience  as  well  as  ignorance,  and  the  honorable  as  well  as  the  lower  clasps 
should  be  represented,  it  remains  to  consider  how  this  should  be  done.  In 
England  and  throughout  Europe  a  peer  casts  one  vote  in  the  House  of  Peers, 
whether  his  possessions  are  great  or  small,  and  in  some  cases  even  though 
they  may  have  been  dissipated  or  squandered  by  his  fault.  This,  after  all,  is 
a  class  representation  and  not  a  representation  of  capital.  In  the  recently 
proposed  charter  for  the  city  of  New  York  it  was  provided,  that  the  Board 
of  Finance,  or  upper  branch  of  the  city  legislature,  should  be  voted  for  by  tax- 
payers only,  but  there  was  no  provision  whereby  the  power  of  the  tax-payer's 
vote  should  be  proportionate  to  the  amount  of  taxes  he  pays.  This  also  is  a 
representation  of  tax-payers  as  a  class,  but  not  of  capital  as  a  force  or  power. 


Culture  and  Experience  should  be  Represented.  79 

*  If  capital  is  to  be  represented  with  any  accuracy  in  government  it  must  be 
by  providing,  not  only  that  the  upper  branch  of  the  state  or  city  legislature 
shall  be  voted  for  by  tax-payers  only,  but  that  such  elections  shall  be  held  at 
a  different  time,  upon  a  different  registration,  and  by  the  use  of  totally  differ- 
ent machinery  from  those  at  and  by  which  the  popular  branch  of  the  legisla- 
ture is  chosen.  Each  voter  must  be  registered  as  entitled  to  cast  a  number  of 
votes  proportionate  to  the  capital  he  owns  or  the  taxes  he  pays — Jay  one  vote 
for  every  ten  or  fifty  dollars  of  taxes  he  pays, — or  to  be  more  accurate,  for 
every  dollar  of  tax  so  paid.  Every  legislative  district,  being  first  alloted  its 
quota  of  members  of  the  upper  house  proportionate  to  its  assessed  property, 
will  choose  its  number  of  members  on  the  same  principle  as  directors  are 
chosen  by  the  .shareholders  in  a  corpoi-ation,  i.  e.  if  the  district  is  entitled  to 
three  members,  then  the  three  candidates  receiving  the  votes  representing  the 
largest  value  of  assessed  property  will  be  elected,  and  the  persons  voting  for 
either  of  the  defeated  candidates  will  have  the  power  within  a  limited  period 
to  transfer  their  votes  to  either  of  the  elected  candidates,  so  that  their  voting 
power  shall  not  be  lost.  Presumptively,  therefore,  the  three  members  elected 
will  hold  the  proxies  of  all  the  tax-payers  in  their  county.  However  that  may 
be.  each  member  will  cast  in  the  legislature  the  aggregate  vote  of  the_tax- 
payers  whom  he  represents.  Some  slight  actuarial  labor  will  be  rendered 
necessary  to  count  the  vote  rendered  in  this  manner,  but  the  result  arrived  at 
will  be.  what  no  government  has  ever  yet  so  perfectly  obtained,  viz:  a  repre- 
sentation of  capital.  Under  such  a  system,  corporations  should  vote  through 
their  officers  as  if  they  were  individuals,  and  women  as  freely  as  men,  in  the 
election  of  the  capital  branch  of  the  legislature  in  question. 

It  might  also  be  provided  that  well  certified  intelligence,  especially  on 
political  topics,  should  increase  the  voting  power  of  the  citizen,  in  the  upper 
branch  of  the  State  legislature,  though  its  possessor  were  not  a  tax-payer.  If  one 
extra  vote  be  given  for  every  fifty  dollars  of  taxes  paid,  then  let  one  who  has 
been  three  times  re-elected  to  any  town  office  have  one  or  two  extra  votes,  as 
may  Vie  adjusted,  since  this  continued  approval  furnishes  as  sound  an  evidence 
of  his  superior  experience  and  intelligence  as  would  be  furnished  by  his  accu- 
mulation by  his  own  industry  of  property  paying  fifty  dollars  a  year  of  taxes, 
or  thereabouts.  Let  a  third  re-election  by  the  people  to  county,  state  and 
federal  offices  increase  the  voting  power  of  the  citizen  in  an  ascending  ratio, 
in  electing  the  upper  house.  Thus,  if  a  vote  is  regarded  as  equivalent  to  fifty 
dollars  of  taxes  paid,  then  one  who  had  been  twice  a  State  Senator  or  Repre- 
sentative might  have  two  extra  votes,  and  two  more  for  each  second  additional 
re-election.  One  who  had  been  twice  a  Representative  in  Congress  might  cast 
ten  extra  votes,  and  ten  more  for  every  third  re-election.  One  who  has  been 
twice  a  Judge  of  the  Circuit  Court  might  cast  five  votes,  and  five  more  for 
each  third  re-election.  A  Governor  or  United  States  Senator  should  cast  say 
twenty-five  votes,  an  ex-Vice-President  fifty,  and  an  ex-President  one  hun- 
dred votes — only,  of  course,  in  the  election  of  a  member  of  the  upper  branch 
of  any  state  or  city  legislature.  Service  for  five  years  in  the  army  might 
entitle  to  an  extra  vote,  with  an  increase  for  officers.  Members  of  the  legal 


80  Responsible  Government. 

profession  should  cast  three  votes,  and  those  who  had  completed  a  classical 
course  in  any  college  in  which  constitutional  law  and  political  economy  were 
taught  might  cast  one  extra  vote.  The  details  of  the  plan  are  immaterial  so 
long  as  the  principle  is  preserved  that  the  three  elements  of  Capital,  Expe- 
rience in  government,  and  Intelligence  or  Culture,  are  to  be  represented  as 
v  accurately  as  a  Constitutional  Convention  in  its  wisdom  may  be  able  to 
provide. 

At  present,  neither  in  our  state  nor  city  governments  does  the  boasted  and 
vaunted  division  into  two  houses  serve  any  useful  purpose  whatever.  The 
two  being  chosen  in  the  same  manner,  represent  the  same  elements  and  inte- 
rests and  are  duplicates  of  each  other.  But  if  one  represented  heads  only, 
and  the  other  chiefly  property  and  intelligence,  they  would  efficiently  offset 
each  other  and  check  the  drift  toward  a  government  by  the  worst. 

The  views  here  presented  are  essentially  identical  with  those  advocated  by 
Mr.  Calhoun  in  his  "Essay  on  Government,"  except  that  he  confines  himself 
to  the  statement  of  a  principle  in  constitutional  government,  while  the  fore- 
going proposition  seeks  to  supply  the  mechanism  which  will  apply  that  prin- 
ciple in  practice.  Mr.  Calhoun's  principle  is,  that  all  governments  by  mere 
numerical  majorities,  are  governments  by  ONE  FOBCE, — i.  e.,  by  that  majority, — 
and  hence  that  they  tend  toward  absolutism,  it  being  only  necessary  that  the 
majority  party  shall  delegate  their  powers  to,  or  submit  to  their  usurpation  by, 
their  chief,  and  the  government  forthwith  becomes  in  effect  a  monarchy;  and 
even  without  this  delegation  it  is  always  a  despotism,  governing  by  numerical 
force,  and  not  by  compromise.  He  holds  that  government,  to  be  enduring, 
must  be  a  compromise  between  different  estates  and  interests,  each  having  a 
veto  on  the  other.  This  he  styles  a  concurrent  majority,  i.  e.,  a  concurrence 
of  two  majorities — the  majority  of  numbers,  and  the  majority  of  wealth,  or 
whatever  the  other  represented  interest  may  be.  A  government,  by  concur- 
rent majorities  alone  deserves  to  be  called  constitutional.  All  governments 
by  mere  numerical  majorities  are  absolute,  and  not  constitutional.  He  in- 
stances Rome,  where  the  plebian  interest  or  estate,  through  its  tribunes,  was 
given  a  veto  on  the  action  of  the  patricians,  and  vice  versa;  and  Great  Britain, 
where  capital  in  land  is  represented  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  the  numerical 
majority  in  the  Commons.  In  the  city  government  of  Berlin  there  is  a  syste- 
matic effort  to  represent  capital  in  the  upper  house  of  the  city  legislature. 

Of  course  it  will  be  assumed  by  the  inert  class  of  politicians  that  no  law 
which  lessens  the  relative  power  of  the  non-capitalist  masses,  compared  with 
that  of  the  capitalist  class,  can  now  be  passed,  since  it  will  require  the  favor- 
able votes  of  the  very  class  whose  power  it  is  designed  to  diminish.  Certainly 
the  measure  must  be  calculated  to  secure  the  votes  of  the  majority  of  existing 
voters.  But  after  due  agitation  a  plan  could  be  devised  essentially  on  the 
foregoing  principle  which  would  secure  the  votes  of  the  majority  of  existing 
voters.  The  number  whose  power  of  voting  would  be  increased  by  the  above 
plan  would  probably  exceed  half  the  total  number.  To  these  add  the  large 
number  of  candid  non-property  holders  whose  sympathies  are  so  far  with  the 
property  holding  classes  that  they  would  vote  for  what  they  thought  would 


Representation  of  Capital.  81 

take  the  governing  power  away  from  the  incompetent,  whether  they  themselves 
would  have  their  voting  power  increased  or  not.  Few  men  are  more  con 
scious  of  the  contemptibleness  of  rabble  government  than  the  men  who  par 
ticipate  in  it.  They  are,  as  a  rule,  more  willing  to  admit  their  own  unfitness 
than  the  more  educated  and  responsible  classes  are  to  assert  it.  By  all  these 
means  the  power  to  remodel  our  constitutions  in  the  interest  of  a  due  and 
proper  representation  of  capital,  and  so  as  to  secure  for  it  a  far  more  ade- 
quate and  just  representation  than  it  has  ever  before  had,  is  to-day  within 
the  reach  of  the  capitalist  classes,  who,  I  believe,  will  be  found  to  be  the 
majority  of  all  voters. 

I  would  not,  by  such  or  any  means,  seek  to  overcome  the  just  and  natural 
expansion  of  that  principle  of  association  which  finds  its  highest  and  most 
marked  manifestations  in  the  various  forms  of  communism.  I  would  only 
seek  to  place  side  by  side  with  it  a  principle  which  is  to  it  what  the  mascu- 
line is  to  the  feminine,  what  the  positive  is  to  the  negative,  what  law  is  to 
liberty,  what  science  is  to  mystery,  viz:  its  better  and  truer  half — its  more 
perfect  self. 


A-ISTNOTTNCEMENT. 


Pro/.    DENSLOW  will  probably    lecture    on    the    topics 
embraced  in  the  within  pamphlet  during  the  coming  year. 
ADDRESS  : 

SLAYTON'S  LYCEUM  BUREAU, 

CHICAGO,  \\.\,. 


